Macquarie Trustee Limited v Yadav

[2024] NZHC 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-585

[2024] NZHC 707

BETWEEN

MACQUARIE TRUSTEE LIMITED as

trustee of the Macquarie Trust Plaintiff

AND

SHAILENDER YADAV

Defendant

Hearing:	22 March 2024
Appearances:	M R C Wolff and A R Williamson for Plaintiff No appearance by or for Defendant
Judgment:	28 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[Formal proof of damages and quantum]

[1]    On 12 December 2023, I entered summary judgment on liability by default against the defendant. The agreement with the plaintiff for sale and purchase of the property at Lot 49 and Carpark Lot 148, 10 Trieste Way, Paraparaumu dated 2 June 2021, was breached by not settling on the settlement date.

[2]    The defendant was served with the proceedings on 2 October 2023. He has not filed any notice of opposition or defence and has not taken any other step in the proceeding.

[3]    The matter was set down for a formal proof hearing on damages and quantum under r 15.9 of the High Court Rules 2016.

MACQUARIE TRUSTEE LIMITED v YADAV [2024] NZHC 707 [28 March 2024]

Relevant background

[4]    The plaintiff is a trustee of the Macquarie Trust and the registered owner of the property.

[5]    On 27 May 2021 the plaintiff began listing lots for sale at its proposed development, constructing residential townhouses on the land at 10 Trieste Way, Paraparaumu. Construction began in or around March 2022.

[6]    The plaintiff and the defendant entered into the sale and purchase agreement on 2 June 2021. The purchase price for the property was $788,000 including GST.

[7]    The agreement required the defendant to pay a deposit of $78,000 by 16 June 2021 with the balance being paid on the settlement date.

[8]    The deposit  was paid  by the defendant  in  two parts on 16 June 2021 and  18 June 2021. The settlement date was to be the fifth working day after the plaintiff received a new record of title, a code compliance certificate, or achieved practical completion, whichever was the last to occur.

[9]    On 23 June 2023, the plaintiff notified the defendant that the settlement date was 30 June 2023. The defendant failed to settle the purchase on 30 June 2023. On the same day, the plaintiff served a settlement notice on the defendant requiring settlement by 20 July 2023. Once again, settlement did not occur. The plaintiff has been unable to resell the property to date.

[10]   The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant on 21 September 2023.

Relevant legal principles

Formal proof

[11]   Rule 15.9 of the High Court Rules provides for the formal proof of claims where a defendant does not file a statement of defence and the plaintiff seeks judgment by default for other than a liquidated demand.

[12]   Under r 15.9(4), the plaintiff must file affidavit evidence establishing, to a Judge’s satisfaction, each cause of action relied on and, if damages are sought, providing sufficient information to enable the Judge to calculate and fix the damages.

[13]   Although the plaintiff is still required to prove their claim, the requirement that matters are established “to a Judge’s satisfaction” does not import notions of the burden of proof or the setting of any particular standard of proof — rather, the Judge must make up their mind.1

Damages

[14]   The victim of a breach of contract is primarily entitled to be compensated for their “expectation” loss, in other words the loss of the bargain. An award of expectation damages puts the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in if the contact had been performed.2

[15]   Following cancellation of a contract for the sale of land the vendor is entitled to resell the property and to recover any shortfall and consequential loss by way of damages, subject to the requirement to mitigate loss.3 If there is no resale, the vendor may establish loss of bargain by evidence of the property’s value at the cancellation date, or (particularly in a period of fluctuating land values) at any other date which properly compensates the vendor.4

[16]   A plaintiff may not recover damages which are too remote. Liability extends to losses that a reasonable defendant will have realised were sufficiently likely to result from the breach, in light of the information available to the defendant when the contract was made, so as to make it proper for the Court to hold that losses flowed naturally from the breach, or that losses of that kind ought to have been within the parties’ contemplation when they made the contract.5

1      R v Leitch [1998] 1 NZLR 420 (CA) at 428.

2      Stirling v Poulgrain [1980] 2 NZLR 402 (SC) at 419; Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 11, [2012] 2 NZLR 726 at [23].

3      Williams v Kirk [1988] 1 NZLR 452 (CA).

4      Stirling v Poulgrain [1980] 2 NZLR 402 (CA); Thomson v Rankin [1993] 1 NZLR 408 (CA).

5      Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528, [1949] 1 All ER 997 (CA); Inder Lynch Devoy & Co v Subritzky [1979] 1 NZLR 87 (CA).

[17]   In appropriate cases, interest, including compound interest, can be awarded as damages for breach of contract under the principles in Hadley v Baxendale.6

Evidence

[18]   The plaintiff has filed an affidavit of Kurt Roland Kerrison sworn 15 March 2024 which provides information to enable the Court to calculate and fix damages. Mr Kerrison is the sole director of the plaintiff company.

[19]   After the defendant’s default, the plaintiff has endeavoured to resell the property to mitigate its loss but has been unable to do so to date. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit of Maxwell Frederick Meyers sworn 19 March 2024 which attaches a valuation report  which values the property at  $692,000 as at 27 February 2024.    Mr Kerrison states that, taking into account the deposit paid by the defendant which has been retained, the plaintiff has currently suffered a loss of $17,200.

[20]   Mr Kerrison states that the applicant has had pay a real estate commission to the real estate agent for the sale of the property that did not settle, being the sum of

$11,820 (excl GST). A copy of the commission invoice is provided.

[21]   Mr Kerrison states that the plaintiff incurred losses in marketing the property for attempted resale. He sets out the various marketing items and provides copies of the relevant invoices. The total amount incurred by the plaintiff for marketing of the property for attempted resale is $5,672.80 (excl GST).

[22]   Mr Kerrison states that the plaintiff has incurred additional losses in having to furnish the property for attempted resale. Mr Kerrison provides details of the furnishings obtained and the relevant invoices. The total amount incurred by the plaintiff for furnishing the property for attempted resale is $13,485.10 (excl GST).

[23]   Mr Kerrison states that the plaintiff incurred legal costs for work done in preparing the agreement for sale and purchase with the defendant. The legal costs for drafting the agreement were $500 (excl GST), and an invoice is produced for this cost.

6      Clarkson v Whangamata Metal Supplies Ltd [2008] 3 NZLR 31 (CA).

Legal costs incurred in respect of these proceedings are covered in the costs award set out below.

[24]   Mr Kerrison states that the plaintiff has also incurred various Council costs since the defendant defaulted on the settlement for power, rates and strata in the total sum of $6,861.74 (excl GST). Mr Kerrison has provided evidence of these Council costs.

[25]   Finally, under cl 3.12 of the sale and purchase agreement with the defendant, if any portion of the purchase price was not paid on the due date for payment, the defendant was required to pay interest at the interest rate for late settlement, being  14 per cent per annum, on the unpaid portion of the purchase price. Mr Kerrison has calculated that the holding period is a total of 266 days. The total interest cost is calculated at $80,398.

Assessment

[26]   Having reviewed the affidavit of Mr Kerrison and the invoices and other documents exhibited, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered the following losses as a result of the defendant’s breach:

(a)$17,200 (due to drop in market value);

(b)$11,820 (wasted real estate agent commission);

(c)$5,672.80 (additional marketing fees on attempted resale);

(d)$13,485.10 (additional furnishing costs on attempted resale);

(e)$500 (wasted legal costs);

(f)$6,861.74 (additional power, rates and strata costs);

(g)$80,398 (contractual interest for delay).

[27]   The above figures exclude GST. The plaintiff is registered for GST and therefore entitled to GST input tax credits.

[28]   I am satisfied that, in accordance with the damages principles set out above, the defendant is liable for damages resulting from his breach of contract in the total sum of $135,937.64.

Result

[29]   I enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages in the total sum of $135,937.64.

[30]   The plaintiff is entitled to costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

[31]   The plaintiff has indicated that it intends to issue a charging order against the defendant once this judgment is sealed. The issue of a charging order under r 17.42 of the High Court Rules 2016 is approved once this judgment has been sealed.

Associate Judge Skelton

Solicitors:

JB Morrison, Wellington for Plaintiff Impact Legal, Wellington for Defendant