16 May 2014
The Court ordered specific performance: the plaintiff had equitable title, the defences failed — limitation by analogy inapplicable to specific performance, laches not established on the balance of equities, and performance was not frustrated or impossible despite lack of a CCC — therefore the discretionary remedy of specific performance was granted and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
25 Jul 2013
The amended statement of claim was struck out because it did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleadings were vague, unparticularised and unsupported by evidence or newly discovered documents, and the delay of some 20 years barred equitable relief in the circumstances either by limitation applied by analogy or by laches; plaintiffs failed to show an arguable excuse or evidential basis to justify balancing equities at trial.
15 Mar 2013
The deceased did not give informed effective consent to the transfer; the defendant breached his fiduciary duties and holds the property and its proceeds as constructive trustee; s21(1) Limitation Act 1950 applies so the claim is not statute-barred; estoppel and laches/acquiescence do not preclude relief; equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust over the defendants' interest, an accounting of rents and a monetary judgment for the property's value are appropriate.
2 Aug 2012
Indemnity costs were awarded because the plaintiffs continued a time-barred and frivolous claim despite clear pre-litigation notice and post-issue settlement offers; costs reasonably incurred were properly apportioned between the plaintiffs until the second plaintiff discontinued, and the circumstances met r 14.6(4)(a) justification for indemnity costs.
2 Apr 2012
The plaintiffs' constructive and remedial trust claims so closely correspond to a contractual claim for a quarter share that is statute-barred that limitation by analogy applies; the claims are therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and are struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendants.
11 Nov 2009
The strike out application was dismissed because the asserted limitations and factual issues (notably discovery for s28 and whether the fiduciary claim is barred by analogy) raised substantial factual questions inappropriate for summary determination under r15.1; the plaintiff was not a party to the District Court proceedings and the fiduciary claim is materially distinct from contract so not plainly statute-barred.