10 Mar 2020
Because the Trustee proved actual receipt of the proposal by all creditors, the proposal complied with statutory form, proposed full payment over three years and no creditors opposed it, the Court approved the creditors' proposal under the Insolvency Act.
22 Nov 2016
Although the removal decision was justiciable and procedural fairness issues were arguable, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck out the judicial review proceeding because any relief would have no practical utility given subsequent triennial elections, the respondent's re-election as a member, the settled new chairperson, and the historical and fact-specific nature of the dispute; therefore the action was futile and bound to fail on remedy grounds.
2 Nov 2015
The Court held the matter was justiciable because Te Kauhanganui Inc performs quasi-public functions and the complaint concerned disciplinary procedure and reputation; the strike-out application was dismissed because disputed but material questions remained about the adequacy of notice and opportunity to respond, and the applicant must be permitted to re-plead focused natural justice grounds; some remedies (reinstatement for the expired term) are now futile but a declaration of invalidity may remain useful.
25 Sept 2014
The Weidlinger modelling is admissible and substantially helpful as an input to allocate relative ground-shaking impact but cannot be applied arithmetically as the sole method to fix repair apportionment; assessment requires qualitative and quantitative judgment. On the balance of probabilities the bulk of damage occurred on 22 February 2011, with additional material damage from the September 2010 and June 2011 events; December 2010 and April 2011 did not cause material additional damage on the evidence. Vero is therefore liable to indemnify for the September (already paid), February and June…
5 May 2009
Leave to appeal was granted because the identified questions of law could substantially affect the parties' rights, the applicants demonstrated strongly arguable legal error on core issues (formation, essential terms, assignment and notice), and the application was not time barred given clause 34(n) did not plainly require written notice within 30 days; on balance the Court exercised its discretion to allow the appeal.
22 Apr 2009
Defendant signed the agreement and remained personally liable; no effective assignment or written variation occurred; there is no evidence of unfair conduct by the plaintiff nor a tenable defence or substantial factual issue that would make summary judgment unjust; therefore specific performance is ordered.
8 Apr 2008
On an objective reading in context (including the tenant's knowledge of the lease), the 3 July 2007 letter unambiguously gave notice of intention to terminate pursuant to clause 10.1, satisfying the 'alpha' standard; consequently the trustees validly terminated the lease and are entitled to indemnity costs under clause 21.2.
28 Sept 2007
The court held the re-entry on 16 July 2007 was lawful because no payment of the July rent had occurred by midnight 15 July: legal tender was not strictly required but the deposited personal cheque was not credited or cleared before the deadline and no notice of deposit was given to the landlord, so an essential incident of payment was absent; the defendant's positive defences (waiver, estoppel, election, accord and satisfaction) failed on the facts; nonetheless, on narrow commercial grounds relief against forfeiture was granted.
20 Dec 2006
The correspondence between the parties, read in context, did not establish a binding agreement nor show that the respondents agreed to be bound by the 1998 deed; therefore the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable caveatable interest or a serious issue to be tried and the caveat could not be maintained.
13 Mar 2006
EFT of cleared funds into the vendor's solicitors' trust account before 5pm satisfied the purchaser's payment obligation under cl 3.7 and the settlement notice; fax notification did not have to be received by 5pm to complete settlement where payment was made in cleared funds and notification occurred within a reasonable time after payment; vendor was not entitled to cancel and appeal is allowed with remittal to High Court to decide remedy.