Agreement for sale and purchase — property — warranty — breach of contract — GST registration — GST refund — property valuation — Ling v YL NZ Investment Limited [2018] NZCA 133 — Holdaway v Ellwood [2019] NZHC 792 — Hutt Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson [2014] EWHC 3842. The plaintiffs had purchased a property from the respondent. The respondent had made a statement in the sale and purchase agreement that she was not GSTregistered. The respondent was in fact GST-registered, and had therefore breached clause 15.1 of the agreement which provided a warranty that the agreement correctly stated her GST registration status. As a consequence of the vendor's breach the plaintiffs had been unable to claim the GST portion of the purchase price as input tax. They issued proceedings seeking the GST refund of $121,610.86 as damages, along with the costs of a valuers and accountants. The respondent admitted the breach, leaving the Court to assess the quantum of damages. The property had been used for a mixture of residential and commercial purposes. However GST applies to commercial property sales only. The plaintiffs and the respondent both appointed valuers; however the valuers disagreed on the proportion of the property that could be used for commercial purposes, and therefore disagreed on the amount that could be claimed in GST. The Court preferred the estimate of the plaintiff's valuer, which had been based on the respondent's use of the property as at the sale date. The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the plaintiffs had suffered no loss, finding that the respondent's breach of contract had caused the plaintiffs to decide not to commence business. Judgment was entered against the respondent in the sums of $121,610.86, plus interest of $25,614 and accountant's fees of $4092.01. Judgment Date: 10 July 2020.