Gray v Fox - [2024] NZHC 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2024-488-000012

[2024] NZHC 750

BETWEEN
MATTHEW STEVEN GRAY

Applicant

AND

SARAH JANE FOX

Respondent

Hearing: 9 April 2024

Appearances:

P Rice for the Applicant

C Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 April 2024 at 11.00 a.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Land Law Ltd, Auckland St Mark Law, Auckland

P Rice, Auckland C Smith, Auckland

GRAY v FOX [2024] NZHC 750 [19 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] Sarah Fox is the registered owner of 6.3850 hectares of land at an address at Mountain Road, Maungaturoto. She and Matthew Gray entered into a written agreement on 30 April 2022 for the sale and purchase of a portion of that land (the SPA). The intention was that the land would be subdivided into two lots, and Mr Gray would buy the new smaller lot. This portion of the land was described as “the Property” in the SPA.

[2]The SPA specified a purchase price of $425,000 for the Property, a deposit of

$50,000 and that Mr Gray was to take possession of the Property on the date of payment of the deposit. $5,000 of the deposit was payable on 3 April 2022, and the remaining $45,000 was payable within five working days after the date of the SPA. The balance of the purchase price was to be satisfied by a vendor loan to be repaid at a rate of $300 per week commencing one week after Mr Gray took possession of the Property. The settlement date was to be 10 working days after issue of the new title. If the subdivision was not completed by 31 October 2022 through no fault of Mr Gray, he was entitled to cancel the agreement or require Ms Fox to transfer legal title to a one-sixth share in the land to him.

[3] Mr Gray paid the alleged deposit of $50,000 to Ms Fox and made several payments of $300 to Ms Fox, ostensibly to reduce the vendor loan. However, the subdivision was not completed by 31 October 2022.

[4] On 17 February 2023, Mr Gray commenced proceeding in this Court.1 He seeks a declaration that Ms Fox is bound by the SPA, and an order for specific performance requiring Ms Fox to perform her obligations under the SPA.

[5] Ms Fox filed a statement of defence and counterclaim on 28 June 2023. The counterclaim contains eight causes of action: (a) misrepresentation; (b) no intention to be legally bound; (c) non est factum; (d) repudiation by the plaintiff; (e) breach of an essential term; (f) mistake; (g) undue influence; and (h) unconscionable bargain.

1 CIV-2023-488-000021

Ms Fox purported to cancel the SPA, essentially on the grounds of misrepresentation, repudiation by the plaintiff and breach of an essential term, on 9 June 2023.

[6] Mr Gray’s statement…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gray v Fox

Details

AGLC: Gray v Fox [2024] NZHC 750
Case: [2024] NZHC 750
Decision Date: 19 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gray v Fox [2024] NZHC 750 involved a dispute between Matthew Steven Gray and Sarah Jane Fox regarding the sale and purchase of a portion of land at Mountain Road, Maungaturoto. The central issue was whether Gray had a reasonably arguable interest in the land sufficient to support his caveat, which he had lodged against the entire parcel of land. Fox contested the validity of the caveat on two grounds: the definition of "Land" in the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) referred to the wrong record of title reference, and the caveat wording was defective as it did not limit Gray's claimed interest to the specific share of the land he agreed to buy. The court assessed whether Gray's caveat met the criteria for being sustained, focusing on whether Gray presented a reasonably arguable case of having an interest in the land. It found that Gray had an arguable beneficial interest in the land as the purchaser under an unconditional agreement for sale and purchase, which entitled him to lodge a caveat. The court rejected Fox's objections, concluding that the misdescription of the land's identifier in the SPA did not affect Gray's arguable interest, and that while the caveat could have been more specific, it was sufficiently clear to protect Gray's interest. Consequently, the court ordered that the caveat not lapse and directed Gray to prosecute his specific performance claim with due diligence.

The final orders were that the caveat not lapse and Gray was to pursue his specific performance claim diligently, with the option for Fox to apply for the caveat to lapse if Gray did not proceed with due diligence. Fox was ordered to pay Gray's costs and reasonable disbursements.

Orders