Legal Research
Cases
Parsot v Greig Developments Ltd

Parsot v Greig Developments Ltd

Case [2009] NZCA 241 11 June 2009

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Compensatory Damages

Specific Performance

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA160/2008
[2009] NZCA 241
BETWEENMAHESH PARSOT

Appellant

ANDGREIG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:25 March 2009

Court:Chambers, Randerson and Potter JJ
Counsel:H Fulton and P J Stevenson for Appellant

N R Campbell and J Waymouth for Respondent

Judgment:11 June 2009 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $8,000, plus usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
A Pukekohe subdivision
[1]       In October 2004, Mahesh Parsot, the appellant, agreed to sell to Greig Developments Limited, the respondent, his 1.84 ha block of land at Pukekohe. Greig was a developer and the parties’ intention was that Greig would subdivide the land into residential lots. Greig agreed that, upon completion of the subdivision, it would transfer back to Mr Parsot part of the land. How that transfer back was to be achieved was set out in clause 16 of the agreement. That clause specified the part to be transferred back, a part the parties called in the agreement “lot 1”. Annexed to the agreement was a plan, showing where lot 1 was situated in the block. The lot’s dimensions were given and clause 16 specified that its area was to be “not less than 2,500 m²”. Everything that needed to be done to effect that subdivision and transfer back was Greig’s responsibility and at its cost. The agreement did not specify a time by which the subdivision and transfer back were to be achieved.
[2]       At the date of the agreement, the land was zoned rural under the Franklin District Council’s operative district plan. But the council had proposed a plan change which, if approved, would have rezoned the land residential. Objections to the proposed plan change had been received and, at the date of the agreement, were still under consideration by the Environment Court. Because of the uncertainty as to the land’s zoning, the parties agreed, by clause 14, that the agreement was conditional upon the land being zoned residential by the Franklin District Council by 1 December 2004. The parties further agreed that condition was inserted “for the sole benefit of the purchaser”. Subsequently, the parties varied clause 14, by extending the clause 14 timeframe to 31 March 2005 or one week after “the determination of the Environment Court”, whichever was the sooner. The parties’ expectation apparently was that the Environment Court would shortly resolve the outstanding appeals.
[3]       By 31 March 2005, the Environment Court had still not delivered its decision. Notwithstanding that, Greig decided to waive the condition. In the following months, however, Greig did nothing about applying to the council for subdivision approval. It regarded the prospects of success as slim until the Environment Court had spoken. Mr Parsot became impatient. On 4 November 2005, Mr Parsot’s solicitor, Brian Webb, wrote to Greig’s solicitor, Brett Norris, purporting to make time of the essence. Mr Webb required Greig to apply to the council for…

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 Parsot v Greig Developments Ltd

Details

AGLC: Parsot v Greig Developments Ltd [2009] NZCA 241
Case: [2009] NZCA 241
Decision Date: 11 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Mahesh Parsot against Greig Developments Limited. The central dispute involved a land sale agreement where Greig was to subdivide Parsot's land into residential lots and subsequently transfer a specified portion back to Parsot. The agreement outlined that this transfer was contingent on the land being rezoned to residential by a certain date, and if not achieved, the agreement would be void. Parsot claimed that Greig failed to meet the terms of the agreement, particularly the timeline for subdividing and transferring the specified portion of the land. Parsot sought to cancel the agreement and reclaim the entire property. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the lower court correctly ruled that Parsot's notice to cancel the agreement was premature and invalid, thereby upholding Greig's compliance with the contract terms.

The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the land sale agreement, specifically clause 16, and whether the notice of default given by Parsot was valid. The central question was whether the notice was prematurely issued and, if so, whether this rendered the subsequent cancellation notice ineffective. Other issues included whether the notice provided a reasonable time for compliance and if cancellation was an appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeal examined the terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the timelines provided in the notice, and the consequences of an ineffective notice.

The Court of Appeal found that the notice of default was indeed premature and invalid. It concluded that the agreement's clause 16 did not specify a completion date, meaning the obligations had to be fulfilled within a reasonable time. The Court held that the notice was ineffective because it did not allow sufficient time for Greig to apply for the subdivision consent, especially considering the pending decision of the Environment Court on the land rezoning. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if the notice had been valid, the failure to comply with it did not amount to a repudiation of the agreement. Consequently, the cancellation of the agreement by Parsot was ineffective, and the appeal was dismissed. Greig was awarded costs of $8,000 plus usual disbursements.

Orders