4 Jul 2019
The applicants established a caveatable interest because the respondent intended to confer a life estate to be held on trust for them; therefore the caveat should not lapse and a final order was made preventing lapse until further order of the Court.
7 Jul 2015
The applicant could already formulate a sufficient relationship property claim under the PRA from documents and information in his possession; the documents sought were primarily evidential and not necessary to plead the claim, and the court would not order pre-commencement discovery against third parties (the parents/trustees) who were not properly joined or given notice under r 8.20, therefore the interlocutory application for pre-commencement discovery was dismissed.
10 Sept 2014
The fourth amended statement of claim was struck out because it failed to plead a reasonably arguable cause of action: it lacked necessary particularisation and a causal link between the defendants' conduct and the alleged losses; the transfers to trusts were lawful corporate/business restructures (permitted by s19) and the losses flowed from the Perron Group's business failures, not from actionable misconduct by Macalisters, so strike-out was justified.
30 Jul 2014
Given the unresolved and novel legal questions about whether the Settlement Acts (s 25(6)–(7)) preserve the plaintiffs' claims and the Court of Appeal's pending consideration, Wakatū had a reasonably arguable beneficial interest in the specific caveated land; weighing the balance of convenience and the risk of rendering the appeal nugatory, the court exercised its discretion to preserve the caveats pending determination of the appeal and related statutory interpretation issues.