New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement notices

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2022

JING JUN YU AND ANDREW INVESTMENTS (2004) LIMITED v BRADLEY [2022] NZCA 378 [15 August 2022]

Citation

(2022) 23NZCPR 902
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed: judge correctly found any initial agent misrepresentation was corrected before contract formation; purchaser did not validly and unconditionally invoke the clause 8 compensation procedure in time (boundary claim was conditional and not properly particularised) and thus could not withhold settlement; vendor's settlement notice was valid and vendor was entitled to treat purchaser's purported cancellation as repudiation and cancel; damages awarded for foreseeable losses were appropriate.
21 Oct 2015

DENG v LU [2015] NZHC 2585

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2585
Court

High Court

Leave was granted for the father to lodge a second caveat because evidence established a reasonably arguable case that a 19 March 2015 deed validly nominated/vested interest in the father and that the $160,000 pre-payment coupled with the pre-auction and auction agreements gave rise to an arguable equitable entitlement warranting interim protection; prejudice to respondents was limited by existing deposits; the son's caveat was ordered to lapse as redundant because the father's caveat preserves the claimed interest; relief was granted subject to strict procedural conditions (file substantive…
16 Oct 2014

GILL V NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LIMITED CA358/2014 [2014] NZCA 506

Citation

[2014] NZCA 506
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court concluded there was no question of law warranting leave because the High Court correctly held the correspondence created a separate collateral agreement between the purchaser and the agent, not terms of the contract with the vendor, and therefore did not negate the contractual position giving rise to NZHBL's claim; accordingly leave was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
27 Feb 2014

NEW ZEALAND HOME BONDS LIMITED v GILL [2014] NZHC 312

Citation

[2014] NZHC 312
Court

High Court

The side agreement between the purchaser and the agent did not render the sale and purchase agreements conditional as against the vendor; Home Bonds had no notice of the side agreement and the homebond terms (cl 27) required only proof of an expired valid settlement notice to trigger payment absent a limited kind of challenge such as to practical completion or title; the dispute here was a vendor/purchaser dispute and did not oblige Home Bonds to withhold payment or investigate further. Accordingly Home Bonds was entitled to recover the $86,240 it paid together with interest and costs.
27 Nov 2013

875 FRANKTON ROAD LIMITED v GABE [2013] NZHC 3146

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3146
Court

High Court

Defendants repudiated and failed to settle; Wensley validly cancelled and assigned its rights to the plaintiff with notice; defendants produced no evidence to sustain a misrepresentation defence; plaintiff entitled to judgment for the contractual losses and interest as calculated.
16 Nov 2012

JAMES MESSENGER AND JUNE MARY MESSENGER V JOHN MARTIN GOODMAN AND DEBORAH LEE RATTRAY COA CA770/2011

Citation

COA CA770/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The purchasers failed to tender the contractual payment on 18 December 2006 and did not prove objectively that tender would have been futile; therefore they were in breach and liable for the appellants' loss on resale. The High Court judgment in favour of the purchasers is quashed and judgment is entered for the appellants for the quantified losses and interest.
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.
28 Sept 2010

BOS INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) LTD (ABN 066601250) V STEPHANIE KATHERINE MURPHY AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-005589

Citation

openlaw-512363a4_1342_42a3_ad8d_035dbf3bef97.pdf
Court

High Court

On the summary judgment record the defendants did not establish that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was bound to fail: it is arguable the vendor offered reasonable undertakings and was ready, willing and able to settle and that any breach in relation to the management agreement may not have been sufficiently substantial to justify cancellation; accordingly summary judgment for the defendants was dismissed.
16 Sept 2008

VILLAGE LIFESTYLES LTD V JEE HING LEE HC AK CIV 2008-404-001639

Citation

openlaw-0feef3ce_b37f_4600_ade7_6052bdb93c18.pdf
Court

High Court

The nominee (Shridhana) obtained enforceable rights under s4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982; the defendant failed to raise a credible, independently supported forgery defence because handwriting expert evidence indicated the defendant probably signed the agreement and variations and other evidence undermined her account; the 3 July 2008 cancellation did not defeat a proceeding already instituted; on that basis there was no real defence and summary judgment ordering specific performance and costs was granted.
28 Apr 2008

SUDA GROUP LTD V SEE WAI AND PUTI YING WONG CA CA1/07

Citation

openlaw-25c47347_7b10_4d1e_b350_fe4b4ecd222e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 3.10 did not apply because the default period could not commence before new titles issued; the possession/settlement obligations were contingent on issuance of new titles which the appellant was obliged to procure after affirming the contract, so the appellant was not entitled to interest for late settlement.