High Court fast-track summary judgment following default on a $3.5 million Auckland property purchase was refused on grounds vendor and purchaser had discussed an extended settlement date. Whether a variation of the original contract is enforceable requires a full court hearing
Fast-track procedure is available for ‘open and shut’ cases where there is no valid dispute that a claimed debt is due.
In 2021, Lin Fang bought at auction a property on Dunkirk Road in Auckland suburb Panmure for $3.5 million. It was agreed the deposit would be paid by instalments, with final settlement due in eight months.
The High Court was told she did not pay the final deposit instalment of $187,500. Short of cash, she pleaded with the vendors for an extension. Settlement date was pushed out a further seven months. A new date was set for payment of the deposit final instalment.
The vendor sued for the balance of the unpaid purchase price when the revised settlement date passed without payment. The High Court was told the market value of the property had fallen to $2.1 million by this date; a drop of some forty per cent over an eighteen month period.
Associate judge Gardiner ruled a fast-track court judgment was not available. A two hour WeChat exchange after the revised settlement date passed indicated that a further settlement extension was canvassed, with Ms Fang stating it was to the vendors’ benefit to later get the agreed contract price rather than take a loss re-selling in a falling market.
Harsono v. Fang – High Court (15.12.23)
24.034