Erceg v The Hong Kong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-006898 [2008] NZHC 2636 (22 October 2008)

Last Updated: 27 February 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

_{CIV-2008-404-006898}

BETWEEN IVAN VLADIMAR JOSEPH ERCEG Plaintiff

AND THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED Defendant

Hearing: 22 October 2008

Appearances: L Ponniah for Plaintiff

BJ Burt for Defendant

Judgment: 22 October 2008

_{JUDGMENT OF JOHN HANSEN J}

Solicitors: Corban Revell,

PO Box 21-180, Waitakere City, Auckland

Chapman Tripp, PO Box 2206, Auckland

IVJ ERCEG V THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED HC AK CIV-

2008-404-006898 22 October 2008

[1] In this matter Mr Burt, who has not yet formally filed documents in opposition to the substantive application for interim injunction, has made a number of valid points in relation to breaches by the plaintiff of the relevant agreements.

[2] The essential dispute raised by Mr Erceg is that there was a pre-contractual agreement that the valuer to carry out the valuation of the relevant property would attend at the property with Mr Erceg, who would point out to him various improvements carried out to the building. Mr Erceg maintains that these would increase the value by at least $400,000. Given that the original valuation was carried out in July it is likely that any new valuation, even with these improvements, would be at a lesser figure.

[3] I have also not seen any substantive legal argument to date from Mr Ponniah to link that with the other breach which is clear, unambiguous and not denied. I also make the comment that if this matter was so desperately important to Mr Erceg it is a little strange that there was not a requirement to include it in clause 7 of the amending deed. That, of course, goes to weight and I should not take it any further than make that comment, that it is a little strange.

[4] Yesterday Williams J effectively made a 24-hour interim injunction order preventing the putting up of signage and such like for sale of this premises. I intend to extend that but only on condition that the sum of $75,000 is electronically lodged in the defendant’s solicitors’ trust account by 3:00 pm today. If it is, the injunction of Williams J is extended to the list next Wednesday, 29 October 2008 at 10:00 am.

[5] This matter is formally adjourned to the list next Wednesday,

29 October 2008 at 10:00 am. The defendant is to file and serve notices and affidavits in opposition by that date and time.

[6] I am told that Mr Erceg has chosen to go overseas on business notwithstanding the pressing nature of these proceedings. He will have to make alternative arrangements for someone to show the valuer around the building. The valuer is to make himself available between now and next Wednesday to attend at

the premises to view the alleged improvements, and to provide an updated valuation as at today’s date taking into account the improvements and any market movements, of course, since July.

[7] The costs of today will be on a 2B basis. They will be costs in the cause at this stage.

............................

John Hansen J