Resale: Pacific Heights v. Jeff

  

Forced resale of prime residential sections forming part of a new subdivision in a depressed market following a buyer’s default will alert potential buyers to the extent market prices have fallen.  Instead, Palmerston North developer Pacific Heights held off, retaining title and instead suing Elizabeth Jeff for the drop in market value after she defaulted on a 2021 purchase.  The one benefit for Ms Jeff is that she was not liable to pay the fourteen per cent contractual interest as further damages for default, because there had been no resale.

But the High Court did add discretionary Contract and Commercial Law Act interest at ten per cent to her liability for the section’s drop in market value.

Ms Jeff paid a deposit to Pacific Heights Development Ltd on her October 2021 purchase of a $489,000 section, part of a new subdivision on Atlantic Drive, Aokautere.   

The High Court was told she had vanished after it came to pay the balance three years later, when title to lots in the subdivision came available.

In April 2025, the High Court ruled she was liable to complete the contract.

Substituted service was needed to give her notice of the then pending case.

She made no appearance.

More than a year later, Pacific Heights returned to court, seeking to quantify damages.

Evidence was given that Pacific Heights still held title; it had tried to resell but could not find a buyer, it said.  Market conditions were described as depressed.

A registered valuer appraised the $489,000 section as now having a market value of $350,000.

Associate judge Skelton ruled Ms Jeff is liable for the difference in value, less her deposit paid previously: a sum of $115,800.

Pacific Heights unsuccessfully claimed interest for late payment should run on the $115,800 debt at the rate set out in their contract: fourteen per cent.

Contract wording for payment of interest applies where a buyer defaults and there is a shortfall on resale, Judge Skelton ruled.

There has been no resale.  Pacific Heights retained the property, claiming damages for the reduction in value.

Stating it would be unjust for Pacific Heights be paid no interest at all, Judge Skelton applied a Contract and Commercial Law Act discretion to award a reasonable rate of interest: assessed at ten per cent; running for the fifteen month period between Ms Jeff’s failure to settle and the subsequent court ruling holding her liable to pay $115,800 damages.

It was not clear whether Pacific Heights has been able to track down Ms Jeff.

Pacific Heights Development v. Jeff – High Court (5.05.26)

26.151

Trustee: Petersen v. Dudley

  

Suspended as trustee of a Kaitaia ahu whenua trust, Rose Dudley persisted in ignoring Maori Land Court orders as she attempted to negotiate favoured access to her own home at the expense of other customary owners, leading to her removal as trustee.

A twelve hectare block off Fairburn Road operates as an ahu whenua trust, hosting a papakainga for its customary owners.  Access to their homes depends upon an informal road permitted by pakeha owners of neighbouring land.

The Maori Land Court was told of customary owners obtaining funding to upgrade their housing, conditional in part on formal road access being established.  This required negotiations with their neighbour, and registration of a surveyed easement.

Evidence was given of Rose Dudley, as one of the customary owners, persistently undermining the trust’s proposed plans for an easement, favouring a route benefitting her home.

She countermanded trustee instructions given to surveyors, increasing trust costs with superfluous survey work undertaken.

In October 2025, the Maori Land Court suspended Ms Dudley’s authority to act as a trustee.

Then in May 2026, she was removed as a trustee with immediate effect.

Ms Dudley was no longer working in the best interest of their ahu whenua trust, Judge Williams said.

She had acted in contempt of court by ignoring her earlier suspension as trustee; contacting funding agencies causing confusion in their minds about trust plans and activities.

This raised a risk of funding being withdrawn, Judge Williams said.

It is very clear she has little comprehension of what is required of a trustee and the fact that she could not act unilaterally.  She refused to follow legal advice and refused to follow decisions made collectively by trustees, he said.    

Ms Dudley separately applied to have all the other trustees dismissed, without successs.

Petersen v. Dudley – Maori Land Court (5.05.26)

26.150

Credit Contract: Beaven v. ANZ

  

Adding to the $64 million already paid out for failing to make full credit contract disclosure to nearly 100,000 customers,  ANZ must refund all interest paid over a three year period by a further 17,000 customers with the High Court ruling financial consequences of the failed disclosure for each customer could not simply be dismissed by ANZ as a small rounding error.

Payment due is not finalised.  The High Court set out parameters for calculation across the 17,000 customer accounts, requiring return of interest payments made over the period 2015-2018.

ANZ has already compensated nearly 100,000 customers with payments totalling $64.4 million: of this $35 million being a Commerce Commission settlement with ANZ admitting a failure to exercise the due diligence and skill of a responsible lender; $29.4 million being further compensation for what was described as a ‘coding error.’

Corrected disclosure letters were eventually delivered to affected customers. 

ANZ’s problems followed use of a third party developer in 2015 to design and implement changes to the Bank’s existing software package generating Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act disclosure letters advising customers of loan terms and payment amounts.

The High Court was told the revised package failed to include interest accrued, but not yet charged, for those customers renegotiating existing loans.

This error was picked up only after customer complaints.

ANZ did not finally remediate disclosure for three years.

Bank customer Andrew Beavan was selected as lead plaintiff in a class action against ANZ.

In 2015, he had renegotiated his existing Bank home loan; agreeing a fixed interest rate on that part of his home loan previously floating.

The Bank admitted its disclosure error, failing to properly calculate ongoing fortnightly interest payments.

This disclosure failure was of no economic significance, the Bank claimed.  Deviation from the correct disclosure amounted to no more than 0.4 per cent and 0.19 per cent for interest payments incorrectly calculated on Mr Beaven’s renegotiated loan.

Justice Venning ruled strict compliance with the Act was necessary.

ANZ was ordered to refund $32,700 to Mr Beaven: all interest paid for the period ANZ failed to make correct disclosure.

Class action litigators will use this formula to finalise a global settlement with ANZ on behalf of the remaining 17,000 customers signed up to its class action.

Beaven v. ANZ Bank – High Court (4.05.26)

26.149