Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Limited v Hall

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 64/2021
[2021] NZSC 108

BETWEEN	MELCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS (NZ) 2012 LIMITED Applicant
AND	ANTHONY JOHN HALL Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck and F B Q Collins for Applicant A L Holloway and T A Cunningham for Respondent
Judgment:	3 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

To assist counsel in preparing for the appeal, the Court notes the following points:
(a)The Court would be assisted by argument as to the circumstances in which a breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access to the premises might defeat the right to avoid the agreement, including whether it would be sufficient to show a breach of that obligation in respects material to confirmation or waiver by the applicant of the relevant condition, or whether it would be necessary to prove the counterfactual.

(b)Counsel are also asked to address whether or not breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access to the premises would sound only in damages, leaving the avoidance of the contract in place.

In raising these matters, the Court does not intend to constrain argument on other points raised by the approved question that counsel may wish to advance.

Solicitors:
Gibson Sheat, Wellington for Applicant
Wotton + Kearney, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Limited brought an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Limited v Hall. The matter before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appeal. The appeal concerned a dispute over the right to avoid a property agreement due to a breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access to the premises.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on whether a breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access to the premises could defeat the right to avoid the agreement, and if so, under what circumstances. The Court sought clarification on whether it would be sufficient to demonstrate a breach of this obligation in respects material to the confirmation or waiver by the applicant of the relevant condition, or whether it would be necessary to prove the counterfactual. Another issue was whether a breach of the obligation to provide reasonable access would only result in damages, leaving the avoidance of the contract unaffected.

The Supreme Court provided guidance to counsel on these matters, emphasising that the issues raised were not intended to limit the scope of argument on other points. This direction aimed to assist in preparing for the appeal and ensuring that all relevant legal arguments were considered.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were to grant leave to appeal and to pose the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appeal. The matter was to be further examined in light of the Court's guidance on the specific legal issues raised.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established