New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable estoppel

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2023

OGILVIE v LI [2023] NZHC 1629

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1629
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements for either a constructive trust or equitable estoppel: payments were properly characterised as rent/subsidised rent and did not manifestly exceed benefits received; contributions to the property were minor and inadequately evidenced; there was no representation by the defendants nor ostensible authority given to their daughter to bind them; plaintiff did not demonstrate reasonable detrimental reliance or unconscionability. Accordingly no proprietary interest arises and the claim is dismissed.
18 Apr 2023

KHAN v NEW ZEALAND MUSLIM ASSOCIATION [2023] NZHC 802

Citation

[2023] NZHC 802
Court

High Court

The applicants' claims against NZMA failed because the settlement agreement removed any proven breach by the first respondents (eliminating the necessary foundation for knowing receipt), NZMA did not possess the requisite knowledge of a breach nor induced any assumption giving rise to estoppel, and the Registrar's dissolution was lawful on the winding up resolution; accordingly the applicants' second, third and fourth causes of action were dismissed.
16 Feb 2023

NICHOLAS v TE AMO [2023] NZCA 22

Citation

[2023] 2 NZLR 620
Court

Court of Appeal

The trustees by their terms of consent to the Ministry's licence represented that the licence would entitle the Martin family to occupy the house until 31 May 2066; the appellant relied on that representation, incurred expenditure and upkeep, and it would be unconscionable for the trustees to deny occupation — accordingly the trustees are estopped and the appellant has a right to possession and occupation of the house and its curtilage until 31 May 2066 under s 18(1)(a).
20 Dec 2022

HOLDEN v HOLDEN [2022] NZHC 3561

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3561
Court

High Court

Section 19(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 suspends any existing liability to pay child support under any voluntary agreement (registered or unregistered) for the period a formula assessment applies; clause 10(a) was a separable voluntary child support obligation and was therefore suspended when respondent obtained a formula assessment; summary judgment for specific performance of the Agreement's child support clause was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Nov 2022

BLAKE v BLAKE [2022] NZHC 3161

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3161
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was dismissed because, although the claims were not frivolous, the evidential foundation was thin and weak: no sufficient written documentation to satisfy s24 Property Law Act 2007, part performance evidence was inconsistent and inadequate, contributions were not shown to be significant or causally connected to the purchase, and on balance of convenience the defendant would suffer irremediable harm (inability to access, repair and use the property) while damages would be an inadequate remedy.
17 Nov 2022

ECOWORLD AQUARIUM LIMITED v PORT MARLBOROUGH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3016

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3016
Court

High Court

No binding 10-year renewal existed: the 16 September 2015 communication was at most an offer contingent on further agreement and formal written variation; EcoWorld never accepted and there was no covenant in writing for PLA s261; consequently s264 relief, specific performance and estoppel failed. Port entitled to possession; EcoWorld and guarantor liable for reasonable costs to remove improvements and for legal costs under the lease.
5 Oct 2022

MARR v KENNINGTON [2022] NZHC 2561

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2561
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there are significant and genuine factual disputes about whether a sufficiently certain and enforceable long-term tenancy existed and whether part performance or estoppel apply; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the defendant has no arguable defence and the matter requires a full hearing.
13 Jul 2022

KING v CLARKE [2022] NZHC 1649

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1649
Court

High Court

The DOFA and contemporaneous acknowledgment do not support implying a continuing right to occupy beyond the 12‑month period; implying such a term would contradict express contract terms and fail the strict necessity test; equitable estoppel not established on the undisputed facts; defendant is an unlawful occupier and summary judgment for possession is appropriate.
6 Apr 2022

SUTICH v GRANICH [2022] NZHC 698

Citation

[2022] NZHC 698
Court

High Court

No reasonably arguable equitable interest existed: no binding contract formed because the auctioneer did not accept an offer under s36ZA and the vendor's agents had no authority to bind the vendor; part‑performance not established; equitable estoppel not made out because no reasonable detrimental reliance and it would not be unconscionable to allow the vendor to refuse to sign; caveat must lapse.
23 Mar 2022

ECOWORLD AQUARIUM LTD v PORT MARLBOROUGH NEW ZEALAND LTD [2022] NZHC 535 [22 March 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 535
Court

High Court

Documents sought were not relevant to the pleaded estoppel claim because EcoWorld's pleaded claim depends on representations and its detriment, not on how Port Marlborough plans to use the land; there were no grounds to believe undisclosed relevant documents existed beyond those already discovered; discovery searches undertaken were reasonable and further searches would be disproportionate; privilege was properly claimed over the two disputed documents. The application for further discovery and privilege challenge was therefore dismissed.