Scoop News  
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0904/S00075/common-sense-prevails-in-real-estate-case.htm


Common Sense Prevails in Real Estate Case


Common Sense Prevails in Final Chapter of Premium Real Estate Case

8 April 2009: On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed a recall application by Premium Real Estate Ltd in respect of the Court's judgment of 6 March 2009, which upheld the High Court decision that Premium Real Estate breached its obligations to an Auckland couple over the sale of their multi-million dollar home.

This dismissal of the application for recall, which came with costs of $2,500 awarded to the Auckland couple, was described by Simpson Grierson litigation partner Willy Akel as "a victory for common sense and finality in a long, costly and hard process".

Akel and senior associate Natasha Alley have represented the couple since the case began. A month ago the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of both the High Court and Court of Appeal that Premium had breached its fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court however, returned to the original High Court assessment of damages, following which, Premium was required to pay the couple approximately $1million (including interest and costs).

Premium responded with the recall application, which asked for a question relating to the market value of the property to be referred back to the Court of Appeal. This was dismissed by the Supreme Court which said in their judgment that Premium "… chose not to have this Court examine the basis on which the trial Judge made her assessment of market value, except on  [a] limited argument … and without reference to valuation reports. Having proceeded in that way, the respondent must now accept the finality of the judgment of this Court. No proper basis for the recall of the judgment has been made out. It is not in the interests of justice that having with apparent deliberation omitted to provide sufficient support for its argument on valuation, the respondent should be given an opportunity of remedying that omission in the manner which it now proposes. The judgment of this Court must stand."

ENDS