7 Jul 2021
Summary judgment dismissed because the defendant has at least arguable defences — a potentially enforceable lease-to-buy arrangement (or components saved by short-term lease/part performance) and a genuine mitigation-of-loss dispute — such that factual and legal issues require a full trial.
30 Oct 2020
s27(2) requires that the guarantor's undertaking to answer for a third party's debt be contained in the signed writing; here the loan agreement merely labelled the appellant 'guarantor' and expressly contemplated a separate deed of guarantee as a condition precedent, so it did not constitute a contract of guarantee under s27(2); equitable estoppel cannot be used to circumvent s27(2) absent additional inducement occurring before the advance; no specific performance order lay because there was no enforceable covenant to sign a guarantee.
17 Dec 2019
The deed of lease was executed by the tenant and guarantor and the parties acted in performance of the lease; the formal requirements under the Statute of Frauds were satisfied by the written deed and part performance; there was no repudiation and therefore no real or arguable dispute about BBC's liability under the guarantee, so the s290 application fails.
4 Apr 2017
The caveat was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable proprietary interest in the land: the alleged oral option/agreement was unenforceable under statutory writing requirements and the acts relied on did not constitute part performance; a promissory common intention or estoppel would at best yield personal/reliance-based relief, not the pre-existing proprietary interest necessary to sustain a caveat, and the claimant therefore had no caveatable interest.
5 Dec 2016
The contract was concluded at the fall of the hammer; the combined effect of the Reserve Authority and Auction Conditions signed by the vendors provided a sufficient written record under s 24 PLA 2007 to bind both vendors (and the auction process authorised completion of price/purchaser details); alternatively the purchaser's immediate payment of the deposit to the vendors' agent constituted part performance; accordingly specific performance was available and the agreed default interest rate applied.
28 Nov 2016
The court found the evidence of an enforceable oral renewal and of part performance to meet s24 PLA was insufficient so there was not a serious question on enforceability, but on balance of convenience and overall justice granted limited interim relief: Brent may remain until 1 April 2017 provided he pays proper rental and cooperates in marketing, and respondents are restrained from enforcing PLA notices until 1 February 2017 subject to conditions and leave to revisit on breach.
3 Jun 2015
The trustees had no arguable defence: there was no binding oral variation or authority to vary the sale agreement, the part performance/estoppel arguments failed as a matter of fact and law, no legitimate outstanding issues prevented execution of subdivision documents before the sunset date, and therefore summary judgment ordering specific performance was appropriate.
18 Nov 2013
Leave to amend was granted to add the defence that the parties did not intend to be bound until formal documents were signed (unopposed), and refused to add the Property Law Act ss 24 and 27 defence because allowing it would cause unacceptable delay and prejudice to the plaintiff given the procedural history and dilatoriness.
27 Oct 2011
The caveat had no prospect because the asserted agreement to mortgage was not in writing as required by s24 of the Property Law Act 2007 and the alleged verbal agreement did not constitute a caveatable interest under s137(1) of the Land Transfer Act 1952; accordingly the application to prevent lapse of the caveat was dismissed.
16 Jul 2007
The Court has authority and duty in s 232 proceedings to determine whether a party who voted was in fact a creditor; Smartships was not a creditor because the asserted liability arose from an unenforceable oral guarantee and documentation showed the debt related to Saba, not IMS; counting Smartships' vote was a material irregularity and/or made the compromise unfairly prejudicial under s 232(3), therefore Polperro is not bound by the compromise and an order to that effect should be made.