Para No
Introduction	[1]
Background	[2]
The High Court’s decision	[10]
Basis of appeal	[21]
Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court	[22]
Our evaluation	[28]
(i) Title by 1 October 2008	[30]
(ii) Seven schools completed by 2009	[37]
(iii) Construction of the town centre would commence in 2009	[43]
Decision	[55]

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Narayan, appeals against a decision of Associate Judge Bell granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Arranmore Developments Ltd (Arranmore), and ordering him to specifically perform an agreement for the sale and purchase of a section in a new development in Flat Bush outside Auckland city.[1] Mr Narayan argued that he had validly cancelled the agreement because he had entered into it in reliance on misrepresentations made by Mr Ravi Singh, a real estate agent acting for the original vendor, Prema Developments Ltd (Prema).

Background

[1]Arranmore Developments Ltd v Zeeland Developments Ltd (2011) 11 NZCPR 799 (HC).

Flat Bush is the site of a proposed new town in East Tamaki, which is ultimately intended to house around 40,000 people. Manakau City Council carried out extensive planning over a number of years to allow for residential development of the area.
On 15 December 2007, Mr Narayan entered into an agreement to purchase a lot in the Point View Park subdivision at Flat Bush from Prema for $299,000 (the agreement). Various acquaintances of his entered into similar agreements around the same time. At that stage, most of the land in the area was still vacant, having previously been farmland. Development had begun, but no new houses had been built. A town centre planned for the area had not yet been started, nor had a number of schools that the Ministry of Education planned to build to accommodate the anticipated school-age population.
Mr Narayan was familiar with Flat Bush as he lived in the area. He is a Fijian Indian. He had at the time of the agreement been in New Zealand for over five years and was the Group Accountant for Instant Finance NZ Ltd. He said that although he is conversant in English, his first language is Fijian Hindi and he is more comfortable conversing in that language than in English.
The agreement provided that:
(a)The vendor gave no warranty as to the date when title would be available.
(b)The purchaser could cancel the agreement…

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 Narayan v Arranmore Developments Ltd

Details

AGLC: Narayan v Arranmore Developments Ltd [2011] NZCA 681
Case: [2011] NZCA 681
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Narayan v Arranmore Developments Ltd is an appeal against a decision of the High Court which granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Arranmore Developments Ltd, and ordered the appellant, Mr Narayan, to specifically perform an agreement for the sale and purchase of a section in a new development in Flat Bush outside Auckland city. Mr Narayan argued that he had validly cancelled the agreement because he had entered into it in reliance on misrepresentations made by Mr Ravi Singh, a real estate agent acting for the original vendor, Prema Developments Ltd. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that Mr Narayan's claims of misrepresentation were not sufficient to justify cancellation of the agreement. The court held that the alleged misrepresentations were not essential or substantial, and that Mr Narayan was not entitled to cancel the agreement under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 or obtain relief under the Fair Trading Act 1986. The court also dismissed the appeal against the costs judgment, finding that the Associate Judge's approach to awarding costs was appropriate. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis plus usual disbursements.

Orders