Kumar v Station Properties Ltd (in rec and liq)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 39/2013
[2013] NZSC 81

BETWEEN

VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR
First Applicants

ROBERT JAMES SELWYN
Second Applicant

MICHAEL DONALDSON AND PATRICIA BRONWYN DONALDSON
Third Applicants

AND

STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	R M Kelly and K J Jarvis for Applicants M J Tingey and S V A East for Respondent
Judgment:	21 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In their submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, counsel for the applicants put forward other proposed grounds of appeal. They wished to contend that (a) the absence of evidence from Mr Daniel McEwan and his son constrained the ability of the Court of Appeal to draw certain inferences and (b) the Court of Appeal should not have entertained the argument on which Station Properties Ltd succeeded in light of the way its case was run in the High Court and the form of its notice of appeal. There was also a suggestion, in further submissions, of an argument as to the possible effect of the sunset clause.
These proposed grounds of appeal do not raise any question of general or public importance and in respect of them we see no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. They are not encompassed by the grant of leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Polson McMillan, Dunedin for Applicants
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vikram Kumar and Nirupamala Kumar, along with Robert James Selwyn and Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson, appealed against Station Properties Limited, which was in receivership and liquidation. The central issue was whether the respondent company was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase. The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the case, with Elias CJ, William Young, and Glazebrook JJ presiding. Counsel for the applicants argued that the absence of evidence from Mr Daniel McEwan and his son limited the Court of Appeal's ability to draw certain inferences, and that the Court of Appeal should not have considered the argument on which Station Properties Ltd succeeded due to the manner in which its case was presented in the High Court and the form of its notice of appeal. The applicants also suggested a possible argument regarding the effect of the sunset clause.

The court considered the proposed grounds of appeal and determined that they did not raise any questions of general or public importance. Furthermore, the court found no appearance of a miscarriage of justice in relation to these grounds. Consequently, the proposed grounds of appeal were not included within the grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the specific question of whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase. The applicants' legal representatives were Polson McMillan from Dunedin, and Bell Gully from Auckland represented the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established