ACTION FENCING LTD v ARK CONTRACTORS LTD [2017] NZHC 3248

ACTION FENCING LTD v ARK CONTRACTORS LTD [2017] NZHC 3248

Summary judgment was refused because there are material factual disputes about whether the items were fixtures or chattels, about the timing of annexation, and about whether conduct surrounding annexation and subsequent sale could amount to fraud defeating indefeasibility; these disputes make the plaintiffs' conversion claim arguable and require a trial.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 3248
Parties
First Plaintiff: Action Fencing Limited; Second Plaintiff: HPL Distribution Limited; Third Plaintiff: Malcom James Daisley; First Defendant: Ark Contractors Limited; Second Defendant: Paul Gerrard Keller; Second Defendant: Karen Elizabeth Keller; Third Defendants (trustees): Paul Gerrard Keller, Karen Elizabeth Keller and TW Trustees 2008 Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Conversion (civil) / Summary Judgment Application (decision)
Outcome
Summary judgment application by the trustees dismissed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Fixtures, Indefeasibility of Title, Fraud, Summary Judgment
Property Law Trusts Civil Procedure Land Law Conversion Fixtures Indefeasibility of Title Fraud +1 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Action Fencing Limited

First Plaintiff

HPL Distribution Limited

Second Plaintiff

Malcom James Daisley

Third Plaintiff

Ark Contractors Limited

First Defendant

Paul Gerrard Keller

Second Defendant

Karen Elizabeth Keller

Second Defendant

Paul Gerrard Keller, Karen Elizabeth Keller and TW Trustees 2008 Limited

Third Defendants (trustees)

Procedural Posture

Conversion (civil) / Summary Judgment Application (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disputed items were fixtures or chattels
  2. 2 Whether trustees can be liable in conversion for items affixed to land
  3. 3 Whether the trustees' purchase of the land defeated the plaintiffs' conversion claim by indefeasibility of title

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because there are material factual disputes about whether the items were fixtures or chattels, about the timing of annexation, and about whether conduct surrounding annexation and subsequent sale could amount to fraud defeating indefeasibility; these disputes make the plaintiffs' conversion claim arguable and require a trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application by the trustees dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment dismissed
  • Proceed to trial on plaintiffs' claims