9 Feb 2022
The application was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate a good arguable case for the alleged oral contract or the asserted $20,000,000 profits, did not plead any cause of action against the second to fourth defendants, and produced no evidence of a real risk of dissipation of the property or bank accounts; accordingly freezing orders without notice were not justified.
27 Sept 2019
Summary judgment was declined because genuine disputes of material fact existed about formation, terms and alleged variation of the oral agreement and whether the plaintiffs' investment was transferred to the Taurima project; the affidavits and contemporaneous records (WeChat, email) did not permit safe definitive findings and the matter must proceed to trial.
5 Jun 2014
No binding oral or collateral contract was formed at the 19 August 2008 meeting because the parties did not intend to be immediately bound and essential terms and credit approval remained outstanding; the written loan documentation constituted the contract (entire agreement) and the terms sought by plaintiff could not be implied, rectified or enforced by estoppel because reliance was unreasonable in the commercial context and there was no unconscionable conduct, misrepresentation or misleading and deceptive conduct; claim dismissed.
1 May 2014
Court found there was sufficient evidence to conclude a loan of $213,932.90 was made but found genuine disputes of fact over whether interest was agreed and whether the debt was repayable on demand or within a reasonable time (limitation); those disputes constituted arguable defences and precluded entry of summary judgment; consequently summary judgment was dismissed.
21 May 2013
The Court upheld the High Court finding that there was a binding oral contract to transfer 50% of the shares at book value. A subsequent discussion introduced a trial period term; that variation was binding (by practical benefit/voluntary agreement) and, in any event, was satisfied or waived by the parties' conduct over six to seven years. Appeal dismissed.
29 Jun 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because Ambler failed to establish any evidential foundation that the Carrs conceded the statement of claim could be read as a claim under the written contract as varied; without that foundation the proposed questions were hypothetical, not legally significant for further appeal, and permitting the amendment would cause prejudice and require a rehearing; accordingly no proper basis existed to grant leave under s67 Judicature Act 1908 and controlling authorities.
1 Dec 2010
The District Court erred: the statement of claim pleaded a discrete oral agreement and did not plead an oral variation of the written building contract; clause 10 required written variations so the Court could not properly find an oral variation on the evidence and pleadings; performance of obligations that likely fell within the original contract could not supply fresh consideration for a new collateral contract; permitting a late amendment would cause significant prejudice, so Ambler Homes' claim fails and must be dismissed; the Carrs' counterclaim was defectively pleaded and also fails.
23 Dec 2009
Because both parties achieved partial success and the appeal involved a substantial factual dispute about the $50,000 payment and an identifiable legal error on the $100,000 payment, the Court ordered no costs on the appeal (each party to bear their own costs) and adjusted the District Court costs by requiring the defendants to pay the increased costs amount plus 50% of the balance of costs and 50% of disbursements to reflect the parties having been put, as far as reasonably possible, in the position of bearing their own costs.
23 Jul 2008
The application for special leave under s 67 is dismissed because the matter did not meet the required threshold of sufficient importance given the modest sums at stake and the discretionary nature of the costs decision; the timing and terms of the second Calderbank letter meant costs would likely have lain where they fell or been limited, so appellate intervention was not justified.
8 Feb 2006
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the appellant knew of the appeal deadline and deliberately did not appeal, he had possession of the allegedly newly discovered file note during trial and did not seek an adjournment, the file note was not materially probative of the key issue of whether an oral agreement existed, and the interests of justice did not justify granting the indulgence to extend time.