Dowsons v CAC 409 & Franklin and Franklin v CAC 409 & Dowsons [2019] NZREADT 15 [pdf, 255 KB]
...caveat was not tested in the High Court, we do not know whether it would have been sustained. However, we do not accept that the Committee was wrong to find that issue of Mr Thomas not paying the deposit did not cause the Dowsons to incur legal costs in relation to the caveat. [84] When Mr Thomas failed to pay the deposit on signing the agreement for sale and purchase, the Dowsons would have been entitled to issue a three-day notice making “time of the essence” to pay the dep...