D MAZANY AND P C MAZANY v B H REID & ORS [2013] NZHC 2456

D MAZANY AND P C MAZANY v B H REID & ORS [2013] NZHC 2456

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine and material factual disputes about whether the third defendant had a caveatable interest (express or equitable) and whether the solicitors had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat; those disputes cannot be resolved fairly on summary judgment and a piecemeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 2456
Parties
First Plaintiff: Dorothy Mazany; First Plaintiff: Peter Charles Mazany; Second Plaintiff: Bruce Harvey Reid; First Defendant: Ian Alexander MacDonald; Second Defendant: DG Law Limited; Third Defendant: Danielle Mazany
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil: Trust / Property Dispute (caveat and Undertaking) / Summary Judgment Application Heard and Dismissed; Case Management Orders Made to Progress to Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; costs reserved; timetable orders issued to progress to trial
Legal Topics
Caveat, Settlement Undertaking, Reasonable Cause, Constructive Trust, Mandatory Injunction, Summary Judgment
Trusts Property Equity Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Caveat Settlement Undertaking Reasonable Cause +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothy Mazany

First Plaintiff

Peter Charles Mazany

First Plaintiff

Bruce Harvey Reid

Second Plaintiff

Ian Alexander MacDonald

First Defendant

DG Law Limited

Second Defendant

Danielle Mazany

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Trust / Property Dispute (caveat and Undertaking) / Summary Judgment Application Heard and Dismissed; Case Management Orders Made to Progress to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the caveat lodged by the third defendant (through defendant solicitors) was lodged without reasonable cause
  2. 2 Whether the defendant solicitors had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat given the trustee/beneficiary relationship and alleged contributions
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff's settlement undertaking was improperly elicited and should be released

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine and material factual disputes about whether the third defendant had a caveatable interest (express or equitable) and whether the solicitors had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat; those disputes cannot be resolved fairly on summary judgment and a piecemeal determination of discrete issues prior to trial would be futile.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; costs reserved; timetable orders issued to progress to trial

Orders

  • Summary judgment application dismissed.
  • Costs reserved for determination in the substantive proceeding.