New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conveyancing

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2018

Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited [2018] NZHC 3418

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3418
Court

High Court

Plaintiff established on the balance of probabilities that the $4.8m deposited was beneficially his and that a resulting trust arose such that the proportion of Defendant Wang's shareholding representing that contribution is held on resulting trust for the plaintiff; plaintiff also established breach of contract by Wang entitling plaintiff to damages equal to the $4.8m contribution; other claims (constructive trust over land, fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, money had and received, negligent statutory breach and claims against 110 Formosa and Loo & Koo) were dismissed; remedies for resulti…
20 Dec 2017

POROS v BURNEY [2017] NZHC 3254

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3254
Court

High Court

Primary: The court found that joint legal professional privilege attached because Burney acted for both purchasers and Poros is a joint privilege holder entitled to access the solicitor's records. Alternative (obiter): even if joint privilege did not arise, relitigation of the District Court's s67(1) finding would be an abuse of process/issue estoppel and Burney's claim to privilege in the identified documents is disallowed; accordingly Poros may use those documents in this proceeding.
21 Mar 2014

STOKES v INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD [2014] NZHC 543

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 64
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to prove that co-trustee Mrs Carr consented to the Bucklands property being acquired for the R M Colebrook Family Trust; absent that assent the right of indemnity from trust assets did not arise and the vendors could not be subrogated to any such right, warranting dismissal of the claim.
28 Feb 2008

NICHOLA ANN BURLEY AND ANOR V ALEXANDRE SAMOILOV HC TAU CIV 2003-070-123

Citation

openlaw-72b0c599_15e2_4c9b_814e_61e94ec6e952.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument: the defendant's interpretation of the council consent was erroneous, the counterclaim was properly struck out as fatally deficient and statute-barred in parts, and the fraud allegations were inadequately pleaded and unsupported by evidence.
23 Oct 2007

A A MEAKER V M O NEWDICK AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-003428

Citation

openlaw-5b564897_12be_4596_b3bb_27a5c63a88a7.pdf
Court

High Court

Documents that were instructions to the solicitors to give an undertaking (P10 and P11), the contracts and transactional conveyancing records, and trust account narrations are not protected by solicitor-client privilege in bulk; defendants' blanket claims of privilege over these items are set aside and defendants must re-list and produce non-privileged documents and relevant parts of trust records, with remaining privileged material excised.
22 Nov 2006

EASTSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED V WALTERS TRUSTEES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-2182

Citation

openlaw-0788b943_5cff_4ad3_b272_d621652b3039.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the earlier order for specific performance, the court substituted the settlement date to 22 December (2006) and directed that the plaintiff be treated as ready, willing and able to settle on that date, with remaining issues to be resolved by reference to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement because the court cannot impose obligations or benefits outside the contract.
21 Sept 2006

JOHNS V ELLIS GOULD AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2001-404-1813

Citation

openlaw-7ac5573b_fd19_425d_9466_1736d32d9b8d.pdf
Court

High Court

The solicitors' failure to advise on the head lease's true renewal and covenanting terms caused the plaintiff to proceed with a transaction he would have avoided; loss measured by wasted expenditure is recoverable in the sum $100,559 plus general damages $7,500 and interest on the $20,000 contribution from 3 April 2001 to 1 December 2003; loss of chance and speculative capital gains claims were too remote and not recoverable.
26 Oct 2005

JOHN MARK KITLEY AND RICHARD SCOTT PEEBLES V NEWMAN HOTELS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2004-409-965

Citation

openlaw-d8ac8147_e03b_4c88_8e83_10462e3cce6a.pdf
Court

High Court

On examination of the documents under r.307(2) the Judge held privilege applied to specified documents or parts thereof and ordered non-privileged documents to be disclosed: P1, P2, P6, P7, P8, P9 and P13 privileged in whole; P3 and P11 partially privileged with specified portions non-privileged; P4, P5, P10, P12 and P14 not privileged because they reflected ordinary conveyancing or non-privileged matters including matters relevant to the deposit payment issue.