8 Jul 2021
The amended statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action: the defendants had performed their completion obligations and were ready to settle, the plaintiffs failed to pay the purchase price and could not rely on cl 5 warranties to prevent completion or to compel undertakings; therefore strike out was appropriate under r 15.1.
21 Dec 2016
The Court held the interim monthly profit and loss statements were informal estimates falling within the knowledge/belief limb of cl 9.1(e) rather than the unqualified "financial statements" warranty; the entire agreement clause was fair and reasonable and conclusive under s 4(1) on the facts; the appellant failed to prove loss from the confirmed orders misstatement because the business realised the work; and the overdraft facility was properly found to be $240,000 so no recoverable loss arose from unpaid trade creditors.
28 Nov 2016
The plaintiff was the overall successful party because the defendants conceded the principal claim and the plaintiff prevailed on his claims and in defending the counterclaim; accordingly costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis in the sum of $51,513.00. Disbursements were subject to review under r 14.12; the expert accounting evidence was of marginal utility and the expert fee was reduced to a nominal recoverable amount of $10,000, resulting in total disbursements of $23,922.05. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for costs and disbursements.
31 Oct 2014
Summary judgment was entered for Rent Plus because the Master Rental Agreement and Rental Schedules unambiguously excluded Rent Plus from giving any warranties or representations as to the equipment and software; Rent Plus was not involved in vendor representations or the manufacture/installation/maintenance, an implied warranty could not be read into contracts that expressly disclaimed such obligations, and on the facts it was fair and reasonable under s4(1) CRA for Rent Plus to rely on those exclusion clauses, so the claims against it could not succeed.
30 Aug 2013
Plaintiff succeeded in establishing breaches of ss 9 and 13 in respect of certain warranty statements and obtained a permanent injunction as to statements on carpet samples and a court undertaking regarding other statements; accordingly the plaintiff is the successful party for costs purposes but a reduction of 25% from scale is appropriate to reflect the defendant's partial but insufficient remedial action and the limited nature of the plaintiff's success.