Legal Research
Cases
Steele v Serepisos

Steele v Serepisos

Case [2006] NZSC 67 4 September 2006

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.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 68/2005
[2006] NZSC 67

BETWEENROGER WILSON STEELE AND CHRISTINE LYNNE ROBERTS

Appellants

ANDELEFTARIOUS SEREPISOS

Respondent

Hearing:23 May 2006

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:R C Laurenson and J L Williams for Appellants

R J B Fowler and S M O'Sullivan for Respondent

Judgment:4 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED.
B.The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C. The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
D. In their place we make an order for the entry of judgment in the High Court in favour of the appellants.
E.The appellants are to have costs in the High Court as fixed by that Court in the light of this judgment, and in the Court of Appeal the appellants are to have costs of $6,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court.
F.The appellants are to have costs in this Court of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of this Court.

REASONS
Para No

Elias CJ  [1]
Blanchard J  [13]
Tipping J  [17]
McGrath J  [72]
Anderson J  [132]

ELIAS CJ
[1]       The appeal and cross-appeal are brought from a decision of the Court of Appeal[1] holding that vendors of an allotment of land were entitled to treat the contract for sale and purchase as discharged but were liable to the purchaser for their failure to give him proper notice of their intention. The vendors, Mr Steele and Ms Roberts, appeal against the decision that they were required to give notice. The purchaser, Mr Serepisos, cross-appeals against the determination that the vendors were entitled to treat the contract as discharged. The cross-appeal, if successful, would overtake the appeal and is accordingly best addressed first.
[1]Steele & Anor v Serepisos CA 203/04 12 October 2005 (William Young, O’Regan and Gendall JJ).
[2]       I am unable to agree with the reasons given by Blanchard J, Tipping J and Anderson J for their conclusion that the cross-appeal fails. I give brief reasons for my view, which is in general agreement with that of McGrath J, that the vendors were in breach of contract. I would have allowed the cross-appeal. Since the cross‑appeal fails, however, I indicate my agreement with the majority in allowing the appeal by Mr Steele and Ms Roberts. Because I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of the other members of the Court in draft, I do not need to rehearse much of the background.
[3]       In December 1996, Mr Steele and Ms Roberts agreed to sell to Mr Serepisos part of the land on which their Roseneath house is situated, for a purchase price of

$207,000. The land was not subdivided at the time of the agreement for sale. The agreement provided for possession to be given on “the seventh working day after the new title has issued”. A new title…

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 Steele v Serepisos

Details

AGLC: Steele v Serepisos [2006] NZSC 67
Case: [2006] NZSC 67
Decision Date: 4 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered the case of Steele v Serepisos, where the vendors, Roger Wilson Steele and Christine Lynne Roberts, appealed against a decision by the Court of Appeal that they were entitled to treat the contract for sale and purchase as discharged but were liable to the purchaser, Eleftarios Serepisos, for their failure to give him proper notice of their intention. The purchaser cross-appealed against the determination that the vendors were entitled to treat the contract as discharged. The Court of Appeal had held that the vendors were in breach of their contractual obligations and that the purchaser was entitled to damages. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the cross-appeal, and set aside the orders made by the Court of Appeal, entering judgment in favour of the appellants. The Court held that the vendors were in breach of contract for failing to take all reasonable steps to obtain approval of the plan from the Wellington City Council and then to arrange for its deposit. The Court also held that the vendors were not required to give the purchaser a notice of their intention to treat the contract as discharged for non-fulfilment of the condition, as the purchaser had no obligation to take steps towards fulfilment of the condition.

Orders