New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Land transfer act

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2021

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 191

Citation

[2021] NZSC 191
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was allowed only to correct an apparent drafting error in the leave judgment (replacement of [6(a)] wording) and the leave judgment was reissued with that correction; all other grounds for recall were dismissed because the delivery issue had been determined in earlier proceedings or because the alleged 'pre-planned scheme' was not the subject of the applicant's notice for leave and thus outside the remit of the leave judgment.
31 Mar 2021

LUO v JIN [2021] NZHC 709

Citation

[2021] NZHC 709
Court

High Court

On the summary application the applicant met the threshold of a reasonably arguable proprietary interest: undisputed facts showed a 50:50 joint venture between Luo and Jin, establishment of W & L Ltd, Luo's control of W & L's account, payments from W & L and some personal payments by Luo toward Farnworth and Luo's active role in development. It was not patently clear the caveat could not be maintained and the court therefore sustained the caveat and declined to exercise its discretion to remove it.
26 Aug 2019

FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 93

Citation

[2019] NZSC 93
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised issues specific to the interpretation and application of clause 15 of the particular Priority Deed rather than questions of genuine wider commercial significance; FTG knowingly declined to comply with a contractual consent requirement that existed for the Bank's protection and therefore lacked standing to enforce the Priority Deed.
15 May 2018

MACFARLANE v PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1055

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1055
Court

High Court

The Court held that Macfarlane, as a residuary beneficiary, did not demonstrate a proprietary interest in the specific Property sufficient to support his caveat (his interest was in the value of the residue, not a specific vested interest in the land); Perpetual Trust Limited was validly appointed by the 1992 consent order and is the registered proprietor entitled to sell; the Court exercised its discretion not to preserve the caveat and granted Perpetual summary judgment for vacant possession so the sale may be settled.
9 Mar 2009

THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WHANGARURU WHAKATURIA NO 4 V MURRAY DARROCH WARIN, ROBIN WARIN, MALCOLM IAN JENSEN AND KATHARINA AGNES LOUISA ELIZABETH JENSEN AND ORS CA CA734/2008

Citation

openlaw-ef58a9d3_4b43_4aa6_9cef_54a46a75bf09.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that an amicus curiae is not a party and therefore has no standing to initiate an appeal; the Court of Appeal has no statutory power to add persons as defendants in the High Court to enable them to appeal to this Court; appellants who were not parties must seek joinder or other relief in the High Court (eg recall) rather than obtain direct appellate rights in this Court, and accordingly the proposed appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

New Zealand Case Law

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 191

LUO v JIN [2021] NZHC 709

FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 93

MACFARLANE v PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1055

THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WHANGARURU WHAKATURIA NO 4 V MURRAY DARROCH WARIN, ROBIN WARIN, MALCOLM IAN JENSEN AND KATHARINA AGNES LOUISA ELIZABETH JENSEN AND ORS CA CA734/2008