26 May 2006
HUNTER VALLEY STATION LIMITED AT TIMARU V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA38/05
- Citation
- openlaw-8c5117cc_0984_4e79_b513_0a11e8680f5b.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The appeal is allowed because the Commissioner had not excluded arguable defences that he was not ready, willing and able to perform the contractual quid pro quo (notably the lease-back and related obligations); given the vagueness of the consent conditions, evidentiary gaps and potential contractual variations, summary judgment and specific performance were inappropriate.