New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Land transfer fraud

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2023

WAIKENE STATION LIMITED v KYDELL DOWNS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1937

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1937
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case of land transfer fraud or of an institutional constructive trust because the contemporaneous and affidavit evidence did not show that the respondent had the requisite knowledge or intention at the time of the 2013 purchase; the lapse of the first caveat was explained but that explanation did not alter the absence of a reasonably arguable substantive case, therefore leave to lodge a second caveat under s146 was refused.
24 Mar 2021

THORNLEY and TREMAIN v FORD & OTHERS [2021] NZHC 611

Citation

[2021] NZHC 611
Court

High Court

Leave to amend was granted and PPL joined because the transfer to PPL presented a real issue (possible land transfer fraud) that should be determined at the pending trial. PPL is owned and controlled by a defendant so prejudice from joinder and amendment is minimal and largely self-inflicted. The proposed fraud pleading contained sufficient particulars to proceed to trial; factual disputes about prior transfers and truth of affidavit evidence are matters for trial, not grounds to refuse amendment. Discovery obligations and timetable should be extended accordingly.
20 Dec 2019

MOEKE v SOUTH WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3457

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3457
Court

High Court

The defendant (Council) was awarded costs on a 2B basis because the general rule that costs follow the event applies; r 14.7(g) does not permit penalising the Council for its substantive conduct outside the litigation in the costs process, and the Council was entitled to costs of $10,775 plus disbursements of $210 totalling $10,865, with enforcement stayed until determination of quantum after summary judgment on liability.
4 Dec 2019

MOEKE v RAUKAWA IWI DEVELOPMENT LTD [2019] NZHC 3166

Citation

(2019) 21 NZCPR 493
Court

High Court

The Court found Raukawa repudiated the sale and purchase agreement and is liable for breach of contract; both respondents acted with notice of the applicant's equitable interest and the Council's acquisition constituted land transfer fraud; land transfer fraud can constitute 'unlawful means' for the tort of conspiracy depending on facts; the respondents' asserted public interest justification did not provide an arguable defence to liability; accordingly summary judgment was entered for liability against Raukawa for breach of contract and against both respondents for tortious conspiracy, with…
14 Feb 2019

SIDDIQUI v SIDDIQUI [2019] NZHC 157

Citation

[2019] NZHC 157
Court

High Court

The Court required the defendants to amend and clarify pleaded particulars where necessary to give fair notice: (1) confirm Ashish signed the sale and purchase agreement; (2) move particulars at paragraph 24 into paragraph 23 and plead the timing and who made the alleged offer; and (3) provide particulars as to timing and participants for discussions pleaded at paragraph 32(c). Issues 2, 6, 7 and 8 were resolved by consent. Some requested particulars were unnecessary or incapable of being provided due to lapse of time. Costs awarded to plaintiffs on scale 2B less 25%.
3 Feb 2015

SCHMIDT V EBADA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED CA794/2011 [2015] NZCA 6

Citation

[2015] NZCA 6
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the proposed new causes of action for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment against the purchaser were untenable on the pleaded facts because the alleged valuation underpinning the claim was without foundation, the pleaded factual matrix (leases, communications and purchaser's knowledge) failed to provide a sufficient factual basis, and the claims were speculative; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and summary judgment/strike out was appropriate.
13 Feb 2008

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL V LINK COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2005 409 966

Citation

openlaw-8e1245ec_e3c5_4a39_9c68_c80ff7c69283.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the plaintiff failed to prove actual dishonesty or land transfer fraud; Council officers by words and conduct led defendants to reasonably believe the swap agreements were at an end and the Council was estopped from enforcing them; Prime's deed of assignment as amended removed obligations to perform the swap agreements; accordingly all causes of action failed and plaintiff's claims were dismissed; fourth and sixth defendants entitled to removal of caveats.
24 Apr 2007

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN & ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

Citation

openlaw-e36ea3ff_b881_45f7_ae77_e7e8ddc4985f.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence before the Court the third defendant demonstrated the plaintiffs have no arguable basis to prove she had actual or imputed knowledge of the fraud or of a buy-back arrangement; inferences urged by plaintiffs are speculative and not the natural inference from documents and expert file review; knowledge of co-trustees or the solicitor cannot be imputed to her in the circumstances; accordingly plaintiffs' first, third and fourth causes of action against the third defendant cannot succeed and judgment is entered for the third defendant.
27 Sept 2006

SON AND KIM V KO AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-2925

Citation

openlaw-a5fa7b61_135e_4934_91c1_26de9d4d1f26.pdf
Court

High Court

Mortgagee's valid exercise of power of sale under a prior registered mortgage transferred the mortgagor's estate to the purchasers free of the defendants' alleged unregistered lease; there was no evidence the mortgagee consented to subordinate the title, purchasers' knowledge did not constitute Land Transfer fraud, and no basis existed for imposing a constructive trust or denying possession; therefore plaintiffs entitled to immediate vacant possession.