13 Nov 2017
MURRAY v PEPI [2017] NZHC 2774
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 2774
- Court
- High Court
No estoppel arose because there was no agreement that sale be conditional on subdivision, the sale and subdivision were pursued on separate tracks, the respondent concealed aspects of the subdivision initiative, the detriment claimed was limited and not unconscionable in all the circumstances, and the Dickens-Wood offer met the contractual minimum reaffirmed by the 2011 orders; accordingly the court ordered enforcement of the sale and directed the respondent to sign or for the Registrar to sign in default, with costs to the applicant on a 2B basis.