New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Laches

  • 13 Jul 2022

    LENDICH v CODILLA [2022] NZHC 1655

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 1655
    Court
    High Court

    The Court stayed the defendant's summary judgment application because the core issue (the existence of a resulting trust) is the same as that already determined as not arguable in the caveat proceedings and is the subject of an active appeal; it is reasonable to treat the earlier caveat decision as a final determination for the purpose of issue estoppel in the circumstances, subject to conditions requiring plaintiffs to discontinue if the appeal is determined against them and to prosecute the appeal expeditiously; Lendich Construction agreed to be bound by the appeal outcome.

  • 18 Feb 2022

    SO v SHI [2022] NZHC 214

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 214
    Court
    High Court

    The Court refused the stay because the High Court is entitled to determine a discrete legal ownership issue where the plaintiff did not originate the Family Court proceedings, was served late, and the High Court determination would efficiently resolve the threshold ownership of shares needed for the Family Court. The first defendant's asserted defences (non est factum, promissory estoppel, laches) were held not arguable on the evidence: the deed was contemporaneous, correctly recorded intentions, was acted upon by the defendants (rental apportionment) and there was no reliable evidence that t…

  • 5 Nov 2021

    A v D AND E LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE Z TRUST [2021] NZHC 2997

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 2997
    Court
    High Court

    The court found the plaintiffs proved abuse; Z owed fiduciary duties extending into the time of the transfers because his prior breaches created enduring vulnerability and legitimate expectations; Z breached those duties by transferring property to a trust to defeat plaintiffs' claims; the trustees are imputed with Z's knowledge and therefore liable in knowing receipt; the transferred property is held on constructive trust for Z's estate and trustees must account.

  • 26 Jul 2021

    NARAIN v CHINAPPA [2021] NZHC 1886

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 1886
    Court
    High Court

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the lotto ticket and winnings belonged to the first plaintiff; there was no persuasive evidence of gifts by the second plaintiff to the defendants; although no formal 50/50 contract was proven the first plaintiff made a substantial cash contribution and had a reasonable expectation of a 50% beneficial interest, therefore the defendants hold the property subject to a constructive trust giving the first plaintiff a 50% beneficial interest; the second plaintiff's life interest and its valuation are reserved; laches does not bar the claim.

  • 14 Apr 2021

    SAIN v JOSEPH ERCEG [2021] NZHC 761

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 761
    Court
    High Court

    Summary judgment and strike‑out were inappropriate because the plaintiff's oral trust claim, though weak, was arguable and genuine factual and legal disputes remained that required full hearing and disclosure: the caveat ruling was interlocutory and did not estop full litigation; limitation did not bar the beneficiary's claim under Limitation Act 1950 s21(1)(b) (preserved by Limitation Act 2010 savings) and the question whether the statutory writing requirement is defeated by equitable fraud principles requires trial; laches could not fairly be determined without plaintiff evidence; pleadings…

  • 6 Dec 2018

    WOOLF v KAYE [2018] NZHC 3196

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 3196
    Court
    High Court

    Costs awarded largely on category 2B with specific items adjusted to reflect additional time reasonably spent; costs of interlocutory applications lie where they fall because the defendant's summary judgment/strike out application was arguable and did not conclusively assist the substantive litigation; defendants were not entitled to indemnity or increased costs because the plaintiff's conduct and rejection of Calderbank offers were not objectively unreasonable in the circumstances at the time; certain disbursements were disallowed as attributable to interlocutory applications or insufficient…

  • 24 Aug 2018

    WOOLF v KAYE [2018] NZHC 2191

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 2191
    Court
    High Court

    On the evidence the parents' settlement contribution was $3,500 (mortgage securities) not $14,000 and the presumption of advancement was not rebutted; deceased parents' late and unreliable statements were inadmissible or of little weight; claimant's monetary and non-monetary contributions, while real, were outweighed by the substantial value of her rent-free occupation; therefore neither a resulting trust nor an expectation-based constructive trust in her favour was established. Defendant entitled to mesne profits, possession and discharge of caveat.

  • 3 May 2018

    SUTCLIFFE v TARR [2018] NZCA 135

    Citation
    [2018] NZAR 696
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court allowed the appeal and struck out the respondent's proceeding as an abuse of process because to establish loss from the alleged undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty the respondent would be required to challenge and obtain different findings from those already made by the Family Court and affirmed by the High Court regarding ownership of the GEL shares; laches was fact-specific and not appropriate for summary strike-out, and issue estoppel did not apply because the solicitor was not a privy to the earlier proceedings.

  • 12 Feb 2018

    DEPOT CORPORATION LIMITED v HOLLIS and NOONE [2018] NZHC 100

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 100
    Court
    High Court

    The court found the literal narrow interpretation of clause 10.4 (restricted to assignable contractual rights) produced an impractical and commercially incoherent result in the factual context; evidence of negotiations and drafts established a common continuing intention in 1994 that clause 10.4 should give Depot a right of first refusal over the substantive mining assets Depot had transferred to Mintago; the written clause failed to record that intention and could be rectified accordingly; equitable defences (entire agreement clause, alleged mere interpretative mistake, lack of outward expre…