12 Aug 2022
The statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process because the defendants acquired indefeasible registered title through a lawful sale by the Registrar pursuant to valid High Court orders; therefore the claim was struck out under r 15.1.
13 Jul 2021
The High Court stayed the proceedings pending determination of the s 45 application because the substantive issues overlap with ongoing Māori Land Court proceedings, resolution of the s 45 application may determine the appropriate forum and preclusive effect under s 77 could render High Court determinations inconsistent, and proceeding would risk duplication, inefficiency, prejudice and abuse of process; service was also stayed and the position to be reviewed after the Chief Judge's decision.
1 Apr 2020
The Court has jurisdiction to consider and, if appropriate, direct a share adjustment arising from the 1993 agreement despite dismissal of primary claims for return of land; the Māori Land Court's jurisdiction is not shown to be exclusive and further submissions are required on jurisdictional limits, statutory bars (including s77 TTWM Act) and the correct calculation of share and dividend adjustments before any order is made.
5 Dec 2019
Although the transfer and subdivision did not comply with Māori land statutory requirements (no partition order under the Māori Land Court process, no shareholders' resolution, and improper affixing of the incorporation seal), the transfer was registered under the Land Transfer Act and the transferee obtained an indefeasible title. There was no evidence the transferee had notice of statutory defects or acted unconscionably; advisers and officials involved held the view partition was not required and the transfer proceeded transparently. Consequently equitable remedies (resulting trust/unjust…
18 Apr 2018
Defendants were entitled to costs for their unarguable claim to Section 20 land and the personal claim against Mr Leach, but the plaintiffs' partial and public interest success on lesser customary interests in reclaimed land justified departing from a full costs award; self-represented plaintiffs may only recover disbursements; naming Mr Leach personally was improper and the costs associated with that personalization are apportioned at 15% against the plaintiffs, with the remainder of costs and disbursements to lie where they fall except for a joint order in favour of TCDC and Mr Leach on a 2…
1 Jun 2016
The Court held the Judge correctly applied summary judgment principles, found on the evidence (including contemporaneous documents and established tax assessments) that Mr Osmond was the central conflicted actor, the purported 2003 assignment to ATL was fabricated/backdated to defeat revenue claims, and therefore ATL had no equitable interest; Arai Korp's registered title stood and summary judgment for immediate possession was justified.
17 Apr 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found the respondent had an indefeasible title and there was no evidence the respondent purchased at an undervalue or made a profit that would sustain claims in knowing receipt or unjust enrichment; the applicant's factual challenges did not raise issues of general or public importance nor a miscarriage of justice to justify leave.
18 Dec 2012
The purported sale and tenancy arrangements were a sham and did not create enforceable rights; the facts did not bring the arrangement within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; the plaintiffs, as registered proprietors after a mortgagee sale, hold indefeasible title and are entitled to summary judgment for possession.
29 Nov 2012
The High Court had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because the matter was not a dispute between a landlord and tenant for the Tenancy Tribunal; the plaintiffs acquired indefeasible title at a mortgagee sale and thereby the right to possession because the mortgagee had become entitled to possession before the defendants' alleged sale or tenancy arose, s58 RTA did not apply, and no evidence established a real defence to defeat summary judgment; consequently the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and damages for wrongful possession.
25 Nov 2011
There were no primary facts alleged from which a reasonable inference of fraud on the part of the purchaser, Mr Hair, could be drawn; section 182 Land Transfer Act protects the registered proprietor absent actual knowledge of dishonesty; therefore the plaintiffs' claims against Mr Hair had no real prospect of success and summary judgment for Mr Hair was appropriate and the interim injunction was dismissed.