19 Dec 2022
The respondent's sale of the property obviated the relief sought, but on a summary merits view the applicant would not have succeeded in obtaining leave to lodge a second caveat; nevertheless the respondent's sale justified a 20% reduction in costs, resulting in an order that the applicant pay respondent costs on a 2B scale totaling $5,736.00.
23 Dec 2020
The Court concluded the evidence did not support an arguable equitable easement over the whole Trinity title; any arguable interest related only to the part to be retained (Lot 3). The High Court order sustaining the caveat over the entire title was set aside. The Court ordered the existing caveat not lapse only until the later of service of the order on the Registrar‑General or deposit/receipt by LINZ of specified subdivision dealings (LT 547050 documents), and granted Parklane leave to lodge a further caveat limited to newly created Lot 3 under s146 LTA 2017 only after those subdivision ste…
16 Jun 2020
St Heliers, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a 2B basis; the exception in r 14.7(g) did not apply given the conduct complained of had no bearing on costs; an allowance for second counsel was not justified; award of costs and disbursements of $11,582.00 to St Heliers against Ms Sparks.
2 Sept 2016
The caveat was dismissed because Mr Hill no longer had any present equitable or beneficial interest capable of supporting the caveat: the Lease had expired/been cancelled and Hill's further proceedings and assertions did not establish a reasonably arguable proprietary interest; late service of opposition was extended and did not prejudice fairness.
29 Jul 2014
On the material before the Court the applicants have established an arguable caveatable interest based on the sale advertisement, the apparent fenced boundary, continuous use and possible remedies under contractual mistake, misrepresentation or equitable principles; accordingly the caveat must remain in place pending a substantive proceeding and the applicants must file that proceeding by the date ordered.
12 Dec 2012
Because the applicant had been adjudicated bankrupt and all property vested in the Official Assignee under s101 Insolvency Act 2006, the applicant no longer had rights under the sale and purchase agreement asserted to support the caveat; the Official Assignee did not oppose removal, so the application was dismissed and the caveat removed.
25 May 2009
The special term (clause 28.1(d)) recording that the three instalments totalling 20% are a genuine pre-estimate of loss conflicts with and prevails over the general term limiting forfeiture to 10%; accordingly respondent is entitled to forfeit 20% on cancellation; even if applicants had shown an arguable caveatable interest, the Court would refuse leave to lodge second caveats because equitable set-off for resale losses likely equals or exceeds the applicants' claimed 10% and the caveats would confer no practical advantage while prejudicing the respondent.
29 Jul 2008
Both parties had achieved some success and incurred roughly equal expenses; exercising the overriding discretion in r46(1) the Court concluded that it is appropriate that each party bear its own costs.
31 Aug 2007
The Unit Titles Act 1972 does not permit unit title subdivisions of subleasehold estates nor the creation of unit titles for registered future leasehold estates prior to their commencement because the Act's text and scheme (notably ss 5(1)(f), 29(1) and 31(4)) and the protections it provides for unit proprietors demonstrate Parliament did not intend such complex derivative or successive lease structures to be accommodated without statutory amendment.
21 Apr 2006
The deposited plan DP7939 and the corresponding certificates of title include the disputed streambed; the defendant failed to prove that earlier surveys or Crown Grants excluded the stream or established a conflicting title under the Act and therefore did not displace indefeasibility under s 62; further, s 62(c) does not permit contradicting a title by relying on an original Crown Grant, and s 183 protects the plaintiffs as purchasers for value without notice.