After failing to find a buyer for a quick on-sale of an Auckland residential property ripe for development, Paljeet Singh was ordered to pay $753,000 damages for the owners’ loss on resale. A claim he was refused access prior to settlement, blighting chances of quickly flipping the property, was dismissed by the High Court; no access was requested. Potential buyers had evaporated in a falling market.
The High Court was told of a bidding war between at least five property developers and speculators at a November 2021 auction of the Smallridge family home in Avondale. Sitting on a 930 square metre site, the property has considerable potential for re-development.
Mr Singh’s winning bid at $1.95 million left Robert and Margaret Smallbridge ecstatic; their real estate agent surprised.
As events transpired, this sale was at peak of the market.
At Mr Singh’s request, contract terms gave him twelve months to settle his purchase with rights of access prior to settlement, allowing him to have prospective buyers view the property.
The Smallridges agreed Mr Singh could use marketing material and photos prepared for their auction sale to assist his sale efforts.
They objected to Mr Singh putting a ‘for sale’ sign back up in front of their property.
It was removed, with Mr Singh later arguing in the High Court this was one example of the Smallbridges’ failure to allow access.
One year on from the auction, Mr Singh failed to settle.
He claimed the contract was cancelled, alleging the Smallbridges were in breach of contract terms over access.
Justice Walker ruled there was no evidence of access being denied. There were no buyers in the market requiring access at the price Mr Singh wanted.
Mr Singh’s request for access by a valuer was readily given, but no valuer turned up.
His claim one purchaser backed out because of an inability to access the property was dismissed by Justice Walker. The deal fell over because no agreement could be reached on price.
Mr Singh had no grounds for cancellation, she ruled.
He was ordered to pay $753,000 damages for the Smallridges loss on resale after they put their property back on the market in 2023.
The Smallridges then offered to accept a lesser sum from Mr Singh in order to finalise the litigation, avoiding further stress and delay. This offer was not taken up, the court was told.
Smallridge v. Singh – High Court (19.12.25)
26.059