New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable interest

Legal area

Court

26 May 2023

WOOD v WAINUI HOLDINGS LTD [2023] NZHC 1251

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1251
Court

High Court

It was reasonably arguable that the vendor did not validly cancel the contract on 30 May 2022 because there was insufficient evidence that completion of the subdivision was prevented or that any opinion to refuse completion was reasonably held; therefore the purchaser had an equitable interest in PU5 capable of supporting a caveat and the caveat should be sustained on terms requiring the purchaser to prosecute substantive proceedings or until the vendor affirms the contract.
2 Mar 2023

MCNAUGHTON v MCNAUGHTON [2022] NZHC 376

Citation

MCNAUGHTON v MCNAUGHTON [2022] NZHC 376
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving there was no defence: contemporaneous material was ambiguous, pleadings were defective, critical evidence was in dispute and contested, third‑party evidence was lacking or inadmissible, and the factual matrix requires discovery, oral testimony and trial determination; therefore the matter must proceed to trial.
24 Nov 2022

CRAWFORD v BACON, [2022] NZHC 3085

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3085
Court

High Court

Threshold under r 5.45(1) satisfied; balancing factors justified partial security rather than full amount because full payment would likely prevent prosecution; order made for immediate payment of $17,079 and further security of $25,095 to be provided if matter is set down for trial; proceeding stayed pending payment of $17,079; costs reserved.
28 Apr 2022

MCNAUGHTON v MCNAUGHTON [2022] NZHC 857

Citation

[2022] NZHC 857
Court

High Court

There was insufficient compelling evidence to set aside the notice of discontinuance; accordingly the application was dismissed and the existing costs order stands, with costs awarded to the defendants on a 2A basis plus disbursements.
1 Apr 2022

GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS LTD v LUNDON [2022] NZHC 641

Citation

[2022] NZHC 641
Court

High Court

On the summary caveat application the Court held GHL had demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that an enforceable contract existed, that it was potentially entitled to specific performance (and thus an equitable interest), and that the caveat purported to protect that interest; factual disputes about knowledge of the vendors' mistake, valuation and the exercise of equitable discretion were left for trial, so the caveat should not lapse.
26 Nov 2021

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD INC [2021] NZHC 3196

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3196
Court

High Court

The Deputy Registrar's refusal to waive the $200 filing fee was correct because the proceeding and the stay application do not concern a matter of genuine public interest under the Regulations: the proposed questions (abolishing statutes) are irrelevant to the stay application, do not affect a significant section of the public, and the applicant indicated she would proceed regardless so the proceeding is not unlikely to continue absent a waiver.
7 Jul 2021

INSPIRE HOLDINGS LTD v JSM PROPERTIES LTD [2021] NZHC 1688

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1688
Court

High Court

No reasonably arguable legally binding agreement existed on either 8 January 2021 or 11 January 2021 because the GST description was an objectively essential outstanding term and the parties did not demonstrate a mutual intention to be immediately bound; the vendor's earlier offer had lapsed and required re-signature to be revived, so no equitable interest existed to support the caveat.
31 May 2021

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 1240

Citation

(2021) 23 NZCPR 106
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable beneficial interest in the property within s138(1) LTA; previous caveats were correctly removed and s146 prevents re-lodging the same interest without leave; accordingly the Court refused leave to lodge an additional caveat, refused the stay, and granted respondent's application to restrain further caveats without prior court leave.
1 Mar 2021

BARGROVE v MSM HOLDINGS NZ LTD [2021] NZHC 322

Citation

[2021] NZHC 322
Court

High Court

Given payment of the purchase price and selection of Lot 5, the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable equitable interest in the property and, because material uncertainties existed about the operation and date-effect of the sunset clause and the settlement date, it was not patently clear the caveat could not be maintained; accordingly the caveat was ordered not to lapse.
23 Dec 2020

TATA HOUSING LTD v TATA [2020] NZHC 3495

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3495
Court

High Court

The Declaration of trust created a sufficiently arguable equitable interest in favour of THL (a bare trust) to support the caveat and the respondents failed to show that allowing the caveat to lapse would not prejudice THL's legitimate interests; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse to allow the caveat to lapse.