STOUPE & ANOR V GABITES & ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2462

STOUPE & ANOR V GABITES & ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2462

The Court did not decide the substantive legal issue; the parties reached a settlement and the trial was adjourned pending filing of a Notice of Discontinuance, with no costs ordered. The proper course was to facilitate settlement to avoid further family disharmony rather than make a final judicial determination.

Citation
openlaw-aef845d9_b2ae_48ba_8253_8b7fb4162190.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Elizabeth Eileen Stoupe; Second Plaintiff: Selwyn Ross Gabites; First Defendant: John Frederick Gabites; Second Defendant: Maymorn Contractors Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/public Works Dispute Arising in Family Context) / Hearing Adjourned After Settlement; Trial Pending Discontinuance
Outcome
Parties reached settlement; trial adjourned pending filing of Notice of Discontinuance; no costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Assignability of Inchoate/expectation Under S 40 Public Works Act 1981, Settlement and Discontinuance, Judicial Encouragement of Settlement, Family Protection Context
Property Law Public Works Law Civil Procedure Family Law Assignability of Inchoate/expectation Under S 40 Public Works Act 1981 Settlement and Discontinuance Judicial Encouragement of Settlement Family Protection Context

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Eileen Stoupe

First Plaintiff

Selwyn Ross Gabites

Second Plaintiff

John Frederick Gabites

First Defendant

Maymorn Contractors Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/public Works Dispute Arising in Family Context) / Hearing Adjourned After Settlement; Trial Pending Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expectation or inchoate right under s 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 is assignable
  2. 2 Whether the Court should determine substantive legal issues or facilitate settlement given family disharmony
  3. 3 Costs in light of settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court did not decide the substantive legal issue; the parties reached a settlement and the trial was adjourned pending filing of a Notice of Discontinuance, with no costs ordered. The proper course was to facilitate settlement to avoid further family disharmony rather than make a final judicial determination.

Court Disposition

Parties reached settlement; trial adjourned pending filing of Notice of Discontinuance; no costs ordered.

Orders

  • Trial adjourned pending filing of a Notice of Discontinuance by the Plaintiffs
  • No order as to costs