New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Constructive/resulting trust

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2021

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v MACKENZIE [2021] NZHC 546

Citation

[2021] NZHC 546
Court

High Court

The reservation/retention of title clause relied on did not establish a caveatable beneficial interest or equitable charge in the land; there was no express contractual provision giving a right to enter and remove fixtures that could support an equitable interest, and the adjudicator's charging order related only to a small sum that has been paid; accordingly Development Construction Ltd failed to show a reasonably arguable caveatable interest and the caveat must be removed.
21 Jun 2018

HUANG v JIANG [2018] NZCA 209

Citation

[2018] NZCA 209
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the 2010 agreement was not implemented and was abandoned by implied agreement based on conduct and lack of steps to effect a sale/buy-out; the $200,000 advance had two $50,000 partial repayments and any remaining claim was time-barred because demand had been earlier and no timely enforceable demand was proven; the alleged ¥3.1 million cash loan was not proven on the balance of probabilities given contradictory evidence, lack of contemporaneous documentation and weak late corroboration, so Jiang's equitable interest in the property was recognised to the extent…
13 Apr 2016

PRAGMA DESIGNER HOMES LIMITED v JIANG [2016] NZHC 677

Citation

[2016] NZHC 677
Court

High Court

The caveat failed the mandatory statutory requirement of s137(2)(c) because it did not adequately disclose how the claimed beneficial interest was derived from the registered proprietor; that non-compliance was fatal to sustaining the caveat and required dismissal of the application despite other arguable inferences on authority.
3 Jul 2013

FARQUHAR v NUNNS [2013] NZHC 1670

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1670
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the removal application because the evidence did not establish misconduct, illegitimate hostility or real risk that the administrators' continuation would prevent proper execution of the estate; the deceased's choice of executors must be respected; the 'expedience' threshold was not met and any unfounded conduct can be addressed by costs orders at the substantive hearing.
29 May 2009

COBURN AND ANOR V CROCKER HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000953

Citation

openlaw-62729418_1a97_4c9b_824b_fad9d13bada6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found on the balance of credible evidence that the estate was not distributed in 1975 and the Brockworth sale proceeds were held on trust for the beneficiaries under Thomas's will; the plaintiffs were not estopped by delay or laches from enforcing their equitable rights; the proper quantum after adjustments is 9/13 of the adjusted trust fund equal to $69,481.82 and that no deduction should be made for Ivan's mortgage payment or the lifetime gifts from Harold to the defendant.
31 Oct 2007

GLORIA ANNE YVONNE HILDRED V SHARON ANN STRONG CA CA287/05

Citation

openlaw-28448db5_e6bb_4a9a_b481_0608aa17ca16.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the mediation settlement was a binding contract and the appellant failed to prove duress, unconscionability, misrepresentation or mistake at the required threshold to vitiate it; absent compelling evidence the Court will not permit re-litigation of a freely entered mediated settlement; the High Court's variation under the CMA to remove ORL references stands and the appeal is dismissed.
22 Dec 2005

MURRAY AND ORS V MOREL AND CO LTD AND ORS CA CA86/04

Citation

openlaw-6baf8fbf_8866_4e6e_93c7_5b87590a0bfe.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the allotment breached s 37(2) because the minimum $1.3m was not paid to and received by the issuer within the four‑month statutory period (the Hadlow arrangement did not constitute payment before the deadline); reasonable discoverability is not a general accrual rule for all causes of action; s 28 may postpone limitation where fraud is pleaded but defendants must adduce evidence on strike‑out to displace plaintiffs' allegations; on balance causes 2–9 should be reinstated for trial while causes 1 and 10 remain struck out.

New Zealand Case Law

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v MACKENZIE [2021] NZHC 546

HUANG v JIANG [2018] NZCA 209

PRAGMA DESIGNER HOMES LIMITED v JIANG [2016] NZHC 677

FARQUHAR v NUNNS [2013] NZHC 1670

COBURN AND ANOR V CROCKER HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000953

GLORIA ANNE YVONNE HILDRED V SHARON ANN STRONG CA CA287/05

MURRAY AND ORS V MOREL AND CO LTD AND ORS CA CA86/04