New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Practical completion certificate

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2014

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2014] NZSC 146

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 548
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the High Court decision: Station breached essential terms in respect of the furniture packages and the obligation to procure a serviced-apartment management arrangement such that by mid‑2008 Station was not entitled to call for settlement; the appellants were therefore entitled to refuse to complete and Station's cancellation was ineffective. The defective practical completion certificate from Maltbys (rather than the named architect) did not, standing alone, constitute a repudiation by Station because it could have been rectified, but combined…
15 Oct 2014

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34

Citation

[2015] NZSC 34
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held Station breached essential contractual obligations in combination — the obligation to provide uniform furniture packages together with an appropriate serviced apartment management agreement was essential to the appellants' bargains; Station's failure to perform those essential obligations by mid‑2008 entitled the appellants to refuse to settle and constituted repudiatory conduct by Station; the defective practical completion certificate (issued by Maltbys rather than the nominated architect) did not itself amount to repudiation; the High Court decision in favour of the appellan…
20 Mar 2013

STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v KUMAR AND KUMAR COA CA453/2012

Citation

COA CA453/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Respondents by their conduct (refusals, offers to settle at deeply reduced prices and correspondence) repudiated the ASPs; the alleged breaches of ancillary side agreements were not material and would have been capable of resolution by set‑off or credit; Station was ready, willing and able to perform its primary obligations and therefore was entitled to cancel for repudiation and seek damages; oral pre‑contractual representations that contradicted the written ASPs could not found a defence.
30 Mar 2009

BODY CORPORATE 183523 AND ANOR V TONY TAY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-4824

Citation

openlaw-e498f111_b2ee_4fad_903e_dfe5902a7148.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the first defendant (Tony Tay & Associates Ltd) and the second defendant (Robin Sears/All Trades) were negligent in design and construction and are jointly and severally liable for remediation and consequential losses; the third defendant (Tony Tay) was not personally liable because his role was that of company director with limited direct involvement on site, he signed the Practical Completion Certificate in an administrative capacity for TTA relying on the building certifier, and no assumption of personal responsibility or causative reliance by plaintiffs was established…

New Zealand Case Law

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2014] NZSC 146

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34

STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v KUMAR AND KUMAR COA CA453/2012

BODY CORPORATE 183523 AND ANOR V TONY TAY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-4824