19 Dec 2017
Summary judgment was refused because there are material factual disputes about whether the items were fixtures or chattels, about the timing of annexation, and about whether conduct surrounding annexation and subsequent sale could amount to fraud defeating indefeasibility; these disputes make the plaintiffs' conversion claim arguable and require a trial.
16 Nov 2017
The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the Cryns' claim was founded on a personal contractual obligation/licence enforceable under the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 in relation to a cable that is a fixture; fixtures are excluded from 'land' under s11(6) so the claim did not require determining title to an estate or interest in land and was not excluded by s11(5).
18 May 2016
Because the plaintiff is impecunious and the claim, while arguable as to trespass/fixtures against Windowmakers, raises serious issues on quantum and causation and is likely to require significant expert evidence, it was just to exercise the discretion under r 5.45 to order security for costs in a global sum of $40,000 (less than sought) and to stay proceedings until that security is provided.
10 Sept 2012
Because the plaintiff is the registered proprietor by virtue of a mortgagee sale and earlier court orders removed the caveats, the defendant has no legal basis to remain on the land; the defendant and those acting for him must immediately vacate the property and remove livestock, costs are awarded to the plaintiff, and service by email is permitted in the circumstances.
4 Oct 2011
Clause 5's authorisation to 'extend or replace' buildings implies replacement rather than indefinite clearance; demolition of the existing buildings on Lot 634 without promptly replacing them breaches clause 5 of the lease, so a declaration to that effect is granted. By contrast, the question whether importing/containing contaminated soil on Lot 634 breaches clause 6 raises factual and valuation issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment, so that declaration is refused.
9 Sept 2011
Property in the houses passed to Vakamon on delivery and affixture and the houses were fixtures; CHML did not have an enforceable right to enter and remove the houses as owner; although CHML has an arguable equitable mortgage/counterclaims based on the deed of acknowledgment and the conduct of Vakamon and Somme, that does not constitute a defence to Somme's claim for conversion; because there are substantial triable issues (equitable mortgage, bona fide purchaser status, quantum and potential counterclaims) summary judgment is inappropriate and the application is dismissed.
15 Sept 2010
There was a serious question to be tried that the kitchen units were fixtures secured by the mortgage and removal would cause serious detriment to the mortgagee's sale price; applying the balance of convenience the court granted a without-notice interim injunction restraining removal or sale of the kitchen and other fixtures pending further order.
5 Sept 2007
The Court held there was no material error of law or procedural unfairness: the referee acted within the Tribunal's broad statutory powers, properly considered the evidence including the defendant's letter, construed the oral undertaking as not extending to off-site manufactured fixtures and the application was an attempt to re-litigate merits rather than establish a reviewable error; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.