RAISER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V TREFOIL PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-005883

RAISER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V TREFOIL PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-005883

A limited stay of the judgment removing the caveat was justified because the applicant had remedied earlier defaults (paid security for costs), provided a personal undertaking as to damages, and the trial was imminent (20 August 2007), so without a stay the appeal risked being rendered nugatory; accordingly the stay was granted for a limited period subject to conditions (personal undertaking, trial proceeding as scheduled, diligent prosecution of the appeal if trial does not proceed).

Citation
openlaw-be867bda_aa58_4f21_8979_6249ecc6804c.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Raiser Developments Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Trefoil Properties Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Grafton Oaks Motels (1999) Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Stay Application Pending Appeal From High Court Judgment Removing Caveat / Interlocutory (application for Stay of Judgment)
Outcome
Stay of the judgment of 11 July 2007 granted pending further order of the Court, subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Stay of Judgment, Caveat, Specific Performance, Security for Costs, Undertaking as to Damages, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Land Registration/title Appeal Stay of Judgment Caveat Specific Performance +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raiser Developments Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Trefoil Properties Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Grafton Oaks Motels (1999) Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application Pending Appeal From High Court Judgment Removing Caveat / Interlocutory (application for Stay of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should stay its judgment removing a caveat pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's right of appeal will be rendered nugatory if no stay is granted
  3. 3 Whether conditions (security/undertaking) can protect respondents from prejudice during a stay

Ratio Decidendi

A limited stay of the judgment removing the caveat was justified because the applicant had remedied earlier defaults (paid security for costs), provided a personal undertaking as to damages, and the trial was imminent (20 August 2007), so without a stay the appeal risked being rendered nugatory; accordingly the stay was granted for a limited period subject to conditions (personal undertaking, trial proceeding as scheduled, diligent prosecution of the appeal if trial does not proceed).

Court Disposition

Stay of the judgment of 11 July 2007 granted pending further order of the Court, subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Judgment of 11 July 2007 is stayed pending further order but subject to conditions: (i) personal undertaking as to damages by the applicant's director Mr Clode; (ii) the substantive trial must proceed on 20 August 2007; (iii) if the trial does not proceed on 20 August 2007 the applicant must prosecute the appeal...
  • A conference with the trial Judge in Civ 2005-404-5883 is fixed for 9am on 6 August 2007 to finalise trial matters.