Decided 1 December 2003 | End date December 1, 2003 | |
 | ||
Full case name BRUCE ROBIN ANSLEY AND JUSTINE ANN ANSLEY Appellants v PROSPECTUS NOMINEES UNLIMITED Respondent Citation(s) [2004] NZCA 14; [2004] 2 NZLR 590; (2004) 5 NZ ConvC 193,914; (2004) 5 NZCPR 330; (2004) 10 TCLR 952 (3 March 2004) Transcript(s) Court of Appeal judgment Ruling court Court of Appeal of New Zealand Judge sittings Thomas Gault, John McGrath, Noel Anderson | ||
Ansley v Prospectus Nominees Unlimited [2004] NZCA 14; [2004] 2 NZLR 590; (2004) 5 NZ ConvC 193,914; (2004) 5 NZCPR 330; (2004) 10 TCLR 952 (3 March 2004) is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a party to a conditional contract can treat that contract as ended if they are responsible for the failure of the stipulated condition.
Contents
Background
PNU was subdividing a property in Wanaka. In October 2001, whilst the subdivision consent was tied up in the Environment Court, they entered into a conditional sale with the Ansleys for $1.05 million, on the proviso that PNU obtained the necessary consents by 28 February 2002.
Due to PNU not following up the consent in a timely manner, the consents did not eventuate until after this date, and as a result PNU claimed the Ansleys contract was at an end, leaving PNU to sell the property to a 3rd party for a higher price.
The Ansleys unsuccessfully sought specific performance for the transaction, and sued PNU for account of the profit they made on the resale of the property.
PNU argued that the contract was at an end. The Ansleys argued that the contract only ended due to PNU not pursing the consent in a proper manner.
Held
The court held that PNU had not pursued the consent in a proper manner, and awarded the Ansleys PNU's profit on the resale.