New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requisition of title

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2012

HANRAHAN V HILLOCK HC INV CIV-2011-425-000507

Citation

openlaw-c5fce3d3_29f9_44bf_9d9f_91059dfc5516.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 17.4 is an unambiguous warranty that there would be no easements over the lot; the subdivision consent and related documents did not require an electricity easement to be routed over the purchaser's lot; the purchaser validly requisitioned title and validly cancelled when vendor could not remove the easement; summary judgment entered for plaintiff and deposit returned (judgment $48,000).
11 Apr 2011

SHERMAN LIMITED v HARLOW AND ANOR SC 12/2011

Citation

SC 12/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The restrictive covenants in the easement instrument did not constitute matters "arising out of the plan" under cl 5.2(2) because they were unrelated to the plan or the steps to deposit it; therefore the requisition clause did not compel the purchasers to object before the vendor could issue settlement notices, and the proposed appeal raising that interpretation issue was not arguable or of sufficient public importance to justify leave.
21 Dec 2009

GRASSHOPPER FARMS LIMITED V ZHOU HC TAU CIV-2009-470-204

Citation

openlaw-37a8cca2_023e_4d4e_8e78_b80c246b6f44.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff: the consent notices fell within the vendor's reserved rights under clause 4.1; the defendant produced no evidential basis that the notices substantially reduced lot value; the alleged statement that there were 'no soil issues' was at best opinion and not a relied-upon factual misrepresentation; no substantial defence to specific performance existed.

New Zealand Case Law

HANRAHAN V HILLOCK HC INV CIV-2011-425-000507

SHERMAN LIMITED v HARLOW AND ANOR SC 12/2011

GRASSHOPPER FARMS LIMITED V ZHOU HC TAU CIV-2009-470-204