1 Mar 2011
HAYMAN V NZ NEW OAK LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-4143
- Citation
- openlaw-7587c333_8279_410e_9202_2f3b32e63ede.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The defendants' counterclaim has no real prospect of success: clause 11.1 precludes landlord liability absent written notice; clause 40.1 excludes warranties about suitability and any collateral promise would have to be supplemental and proved by strong, unequivocal evidence which is absent; defendants failed the heavy evidential burden and their conduct undermines the alleged warranty; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and should not be stayed.