Legal Research
Cases
Yu v Bradley

Yu v Bradley

Case [2022] NZCA 378 15 August 2022

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA477/2020
[2022] NZCA 378

BETWEEN	JING JUN YU First Appellant
AND	ANDREW INVESTMENTS (2004) LIMITED Second Appellant
AND	DALE GORDON BRADLEY AND JILLIAN ANNE BRADLEY Respondents

Hearing:	14 October 2021 (further submissions received 25 May 2022)
Court:	Cooper P, Clifford and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	L J Taylor QC and E J Watt for Appellants H M Z Lanham for Respondents
Judgment:	15 August 2022 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellants must pay the respondents’ costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper P)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Narrative
The proceeding in the High Court
First issue — corrected misrepresentations?
Second issue — who repudiated and cancelled the Agreement?

Was Mr Yu’s right to inspect under cl 3.2 of the Agreement breached?
Did Mr Yu have a claim for compensation under cl 8 of the Agreement?

Damages
Result

[1]
[4]
[45]
[59]
[67]
[68]

[76]

[117]
[132]

Introduction

This is an appeal from a High Court judgment arising out of a dispute between the parties to an agreement for the sale and purchase of land situated on Whitford‑Maraetai Road, to the south-east of Auckland (the Agreement).[1] The Property, referred to in evidence as No 471 Whitford-Maraetai Road, is a substantial one, comprising 2.4 ha, and has been developed by the construction of a two-storey, four-bedroom house of approximately 256 square metres. The first appellant, Mr Yu, who is the sole director of the second appellant, Andrew Investments (2004) Ltd, made an offer to purchase the Property from the respondents, the Bradleys, for $2.3 million. The Bradleys accepted the offer and the Agreement was executed on 12 November 2016. The Agreement became unconditional on 30 November 2016 and Mr Yu subsequently paid the deposit of $230,000. He later exercised his right to nominate Andrew Investments (2004) Ltd to complete the purchase.[2]
[1]Yu v Bradley [2020] NZHC 1822, (2020) 21 NZCPR 220 [Judgment appealed].
[2]The issues arising for determination do not require us to distinguish between Mr Yu and Andrew Investments (2004) Ltd and for simplicity we refer throughout to Mr Yu as the person having the rights and obligations of the purchaser.
However, the transaction did not settle, due to the circumstances we address below. Mr Yu sued for the return of the deposit and the Bradleys counterclaimed for damages suffered when the Property was resold at a lower price to a third party, and various associated costs. The High Court entered judgment for $575,672.99, less deductions for the $230,000 deposit the Bradleys retained.[3] Mr Yu now appeals alleging the High Court made various factual and legal errors in its assessment of liability. It is also said the Court erred in determining the quantum of the damages.
[3]Judgment appealed, above n 1, at [87] and [89]. See also at [79].
We refer to the…

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 Yu v Bradley

Details

AGLC: Yu v Bradley [2022] NZCA 378
Case: [2022] NZCA 378
Decision Date: 15 August 2022 at 2:30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is an appeal from a High Court judgment arising out of a dispute between the parties to an agreement for the sale and purchase of land situated on Whitford-Maraetai Road, to the south-east of Auckland. The first appellant, Mr Yu, who is the sole director of the second appellant, Andrew Investments (2004) Ltd, made an offer to purchase the Property from the respondents, the Bradleys, for $2.3 million. The Bradleys accepted the offer and the Agreement was executed on 12 November 2016. The Agreement became unconditional on 30 November 2016 and Mr Yu subsequently paid the deposit of $230,000. He later exercised his right to nominate Andrew Investments (2004) Ltd to complete the purchase. The transaction did not settle, due to the circumstances addressed below. Mr Yu sued for the return of the deposit and the Bradleys counterclaimed for damages suffered when the Property was resold at a lower price to a third party, and various associated costs. The High Court entered judgment for $575,672.99, less deductions for the $230,000 deposit the Bradleys retained. Mr Yu now appeals alleging the High Court made various factual and legal errors in its assessment of liability. It is also said the Court erred in determining the quantum of the damages. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondents’ costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Orders