6 May 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed the application to adduce the email chain as fresh evidence because the criteria for admission were not met, allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal and High Court decisions refusing to sustain the caveat, and ordered that the caveat not lapse.
30 Sept 2021
The caveats do not lapse on summary application because the caveator has shown a reasonably arguable beneficial interest through substantial financial contributions and potentially a remedial constructive trust; removal would risk prejudicing that legitimate interest. The not-lapse order is interim and conditional on the caveator promptly issuing and diligently pursuing substantive proceedings to determine the interest.
13 Sept 2019
The caveat was ordered to lapse because the respondent provided an enforceable undertaking to pay $120,000 of the net sale proceeds into court to be held on interest bearing deposit pending determination of the applicant's substantive proceedings; directions were given for a judicial settlement conference to manage the dispute.
7 Mar 2018
Because the applicant's application to prevent the caveat from lapsing was declined and no persuasive argument was advanced to depart from the court's preliminary view, the respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and to recover $9,589.00 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
1 Mar 2018
Because the caveator failed to file the required High Court application and notify LINZ within the 14‑day period and failed to obtain any interim or final order within the 28‑day period, the caveat lapsed and the Court, lacking jurisdiction to extend those statutory time limits, must dismiss the application to sustain the caveat.
30 Jul 2015
Read in commercial context clauses 14 and 15 of the 2002 agreement reasonably imply an intention to create rights affecting Noble land (services and roading) capable of being the subject of equitable easements or other proprietary protection; on the summary threshold the appellants established a reasonably arguable proprietary interest sufficient to sustain caveat 1 (including Lot 11) and caveat 2 (2008 right of way); the Associate Judge's prescriptive condition [118](e) and the lapse as to Lot 11 were based on errors of fact or produced uncertainty and were quashed; leave to apply for lapse…
15 Mar 2012
The caveators established a reasonably arguable equitable interest under the sale agreements and trust claims and, on the facts, the Court should exercise its equitable discretion to condone delay because Crown restraining orders and attendant forfeiture proceedings effectively precluded enforcement; Heliventures' position was ratified and it was properly joined; accordingly the caveats should not lapse and must be preserved.
25 Nov 2010
The caveat met s137 form and derivation requirements but the applicant failed to show an arguable case of net detriment; absent net detriment it is not unconscionable to allow the registered proprietor to sell, so the caveat must lapse (though lapsing deferred to permit appeal steps).
25 Sept 2007
Where misnaming is a technical misnomer causing no prejudice and the liquidators were placed on notice as custodians and agents of the company, the Court will grant retrospective leave under s248 and amend the defendant's name so that the proceeding is effective from the original filing date and will grant limited interim relief preventing the caveats from lapsing to allow prompt substantive determination.