New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 224 rma

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2022

ASHDALE LEVIN LTD v HOROWHENUA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 498

Citation

[2022] NZHC 498
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there were real and arguable defences: clauses 3 and 4 of the HOA are reasonably arguable as not creating an immediate, binding payment obligation because they contemplate further individual negotiations to determine any cost share; Ashdale, not being a designated beneficiary, cannot enforce the HOA; factual and legal issues (including reserved negotiation of amount and whether HDC 'elected' scenario 2B) precluded summary disposition. Strike out orders were granted in respect of Ashdale's contract claims and the fourth and fifth causes of action were str…
23 Jun 2006

BARKER V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL HC INV CIV 2005-425-000453

Citation

openlaw-f66017ae_0102_42e6_ba39_670d50759d0b.pdf
Court

High Court

The consent notice was irregular because it did not specify any condition of the subdivision consent (it did not reflect Condition 5); notwithstanding that irregularity, the Court declined to set it aside by judicial review because statutory indefeasibility principles, the protection of purchasers who relied on the registered notice and Parliament's prescribed s221(3)/(3A) review/variation process meant the appropriate route was statutory variation rather than direct court intervention; therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.