RHODES AND ANOR V HAGAMAN AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-001251

RHODES AND ANOR V HAGAMAN AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-001251

The interim injunction was refused because plaintiffs failed to present cogent evidence that defendants intended to deal with the disputed properties to plaintiffs' detriment, the pleadings and contractual arrangements were uncertain and the necessary trust/shareholding structures had not been established despite years passing, so the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favour granting an interim injunction.

Citation
openlaw-154a5a42_31f9_4b4b_a2e6_0e071f715628.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Allan Michael Rhodes; Second Plaintiff: Tara Holdings Ltd; First Defendant: Lianna Merie Hagaman; Second Defendant: Earl Raymond Hagaman; Third Defendant: Hornby Tower Holdings Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Scenic Circle Hotels Ltd; Fifth Defendant: En Ventre Sa Mere Ltd; Sixth Defendant: Hororata Investments Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Hotchpot Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction Proceedings / Interim Injunction Application (de Novo Hearing)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused; two defendants struck from proceedings; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Specific Performance, Interim Injunction, Share Transfer, Land Dealing Tax
Property Law Trusts Equity Injunctions Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Specific Performance Interim Injunction +2 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Michael Rhodes

First Plaintiff

Tara Holdings Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Lianna Merie Hagaman

First Defendant

Earl Raymond Hagaman

Second Defendant

Hornby Tower Holdings Ltd

Third Defendant

Scenic Circle Hotels Ltd

Fourth Defendant

En Ventre Sa Mere Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Hororata Investments Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Hotchpot Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction Proceedings / Interim Injunction Application (de Novo Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding plaintiffs' claimed share interests and alleged constructive trusts
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs have established sufficient cogent evidence that defendants intend to deal with the assets to plaintiffs' detriment
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and overall justice favour continuation of an interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction was refused because plaintiffs failed to present cogent evidence that defendants intended to deal with the disputed properties to plaintiffs' detriment, the pleadings and contractual arrangements were uncertain and the necessary trust/shareholding structures had not been established despite years passing, so the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favour granting an interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused; two defendants struck from proceedings; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction refused
  • Scenic Circle Hotels Ltd (fourth defendant) struck from proceedings