The Attorney-General v William Alexander McLennan
[2002] NZCA 92
•8 May 2002
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND | CA41/00 |
| BETWEEN | THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL |
| Appellant |
| AND | WILLIAM ALEXANDER MCLENNAN |
| First Respondent |
| AND | WILSON I MCLENNAN, EWEN D MCLENNAN, J MAVIS THORNTON, ELAINE M RANKIN, EILEEN M BRADSTREET AND MAUREEN J FINLAYSON |
| Second Respondents |
| Coram: | Gault J Keith J Blanchard J | ||
| Date of Minute: | 8 May 2002 | ||
| MINUTE OF THE COURT |
This minute is issued in response to counsel for the Attorney-General’s memorandum of 6 May 2002.
It was certainly the Court’s understanding that the issue of whether there was a binding obligation upon the Crown in respect of the sports fields was before it. The trial Judge had made a declaration that the Crown was obliged to sell that particular piece of the land at the 1993 valuation.
The respondents’ submissions referred to their acceptance of the fifth offer back made in September 1998 in respect of the sports fields and asserted that a contract had come into existence (para 62, p.18).
During argument the fairly obvious point was made by the Court that the “acceptance” would simply be a counter-offer if the Crown’s offer was validly made at a current (1998) valuation.
The transcript of the notes made by Ms Hansen accurately records the exchanges which members of the Court had with counsel in which the acceptance was characterised as appearing to be a counter-offer (by Blanchard J) or a conditional acceptance (by Gault J).
It was not suggested to the Court by Mr Katz QC that this was not something which the Court ought to determine. Quite the contrary, as a result of exchanges with Mr White QC and Mr Katz, we understood that we were required to do so.
0
0
0