New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Options to purchase

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2018

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LTD v WETA ESTATE LTD [2018] NZHC 1771

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1771
Court

High Court

Court awarded costs now on a 2B basis, certified second counsel, and reduced the plaintiffs' claimed costs by 20% to reflect the additional costs caused by failed causes of action and unsuccessful arguments; allowed a reduced discovery component (30% of claimed), disallowed document inspection and certain witness/expert travel and invoice claims (Grant and Dr Jordan), allowed the interim injunction costs and filing fee, and declined costs on the costs application, resulting in awarded costs of $37,731.60 against the defendants jointly and $4,906 against the first defendant for the injunction…
12 Feb 2018

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 112

Citation

[2018] NZHC 112
Court

High Court

Discovery of the plaintiffs' financial records was declined because the records are not relevant to the narrow preliminary questions (whether the plaintiffs would have exercised the options prior to 1 May 2013 and related liability); ability to pay was not a condition precedent to the exercise of the options nor directly determinative of liability on the pleaded issues, and permitting wide financial discovery would defeat the limited scope of the preliminary questions procedure.
3 Jun 2014

GHUZNEE HOLDINGS LTD v PATI and MARQUES [2014] NZHC 1222

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1222
Court

High Court

The court held the Deed of Modification evidenced an intention that the covenant run with the land and be enforceable by successors, so Ghuznee may enforce it; however Ghuznee's purported exercise of the option was arguably invalid because the option may have been triggered no later than October 2012 and was not exercised within the contractually stipulated 30 days, giving the defendants an arguable defence and rendering summary judgment inappropriate; accordingly the application for summary judgment was dismissed.
3 Oct 2012

DROMGOOL V S N DROMGOOL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-3986

Citation

openlaw-db97b4eb_938e_4748_80da_230b79678c4e.pdf
Court

High Court

The grant of options by Anne and Peter together with prior transfer notices constituted sufficient evidence that they 'desire to sell or transfer' within cl 11.2(1) of the company's constitution; accordingly clause 11.2 was triggered and the court ordered compliance with cl 11.2(1) and (2) (transfer notices specifying the sum the grantors consider to be the value), rejecting the proposition that s 174(2) provided the remedy sought.
1 Aug 2008

BLUE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND STARTING FIVE LIMITED V MKW HOLDINGS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2007-485-1016

Citation

openlaw-13a58a47_4c24_4d79_96f9_243a25dac1c4.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 4.3 is properly read as creating a notional/hypothetical calculation: where the Vendor completes the Vendor's Works the Purchaser must pay an amount equivalent to what the Purchaser would have spent to implement the Purchaser's Proposed Works, calculated by reference to the items listed in clause 4.3. Separately, the sale of the three remaining unit‑titled carparks as part of the wider sale to Multiplex amounted to those carparks being 'available for sale' and selling them without first offering them to the Purchaser at the contractual price breached clause 16.1.
21 Nov 2006

GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED V SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED CA CA90/06

Citation

openlaw-edb22e9f_4b39_4e66_83fe_51c039d44ef2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 16 did not materially depart from the option but recorded and implemented the parties' right to effect the purchase through a nominee to achieve going-concern GST treatment; Southbourne was estopped from objecting to the mode of payment because its agent received and acknowledged the deposit cheque without timely objection; other alleged departures (agent clause, chattels wording) were immaterial; therefore no seriously arguable defence existed and summary judgment ordering specific performance was appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LTD v WETA ESTATE LTD [2018] NZHC 1771

SAVVY VINEYARDS 4334 LIMITED v WETA ESTATE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 112

GHUZNEE HOLDINGS LTD v PATI and MARQUES [2014] NZHC 1222

DROMGOOL V S N DROMGOOL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-3986

BLUE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND STARTING FIVE LIMITED V MKW HOLDINGS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2007-485-1016

GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED V SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED CA CA90/06