New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgage registration

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2019

THOMAS v THOMPSON [2019] NZCA 503

Citation

[2019] NZCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's reversal of the liquidator's decision because the liquidator's refusal to consent to release of the funds was unreasonable: DDC had failed to comply with the agreed dispute-resolution process, the dispute was bound up with an unprovable damages claim and effectively unresolvable in liquidation, and retention of the funds could not be justified as a decision that a reasonable liquidator could make, so the release order was proper under s 284 review principles.
22 May 2019

FM CUSTODIANS LTD v R & SMITH [2019] NZHC 1128

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1128
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: the properties were used by Smith to obtain loan advances and thus to facilitate the offence; Smith committed the forgeries as agent in the course of tasks entrusted by FM Custodians (through its solicitor/agent arrangements) so mortgages were obtained by fraud and indefeasibility did not protect FM Custodians; FM Custodians was therefore involved in the offending and relief from instrument forfeiture was correctly refused; appeal dismissed.
13 Dec 2018

SAHU KHAN v SHARIFF [2018] NZCA 583

Citation

[2018] NZCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's evidence was disorganised and unreliable, the proved documentary evidence established only a limited number of payments (FJD 30,802) but did not establish falsity and the defendant's dishonest state of mind on the balance of probabilities, and the claim for alleged promised 'special damages' was not actionable in deceit and was not pleaded or established as an enforceable contract right.
21 Mar 2017

THOMPSON & Anor v DD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & Ors [2017] NZHC 516

Citation

[2017] NZHC 516
Court

High Court

Summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the FTA and related causes of action could not be entered because there was a real issue whether the director honestly and reasonably held the $350,000/18 week estimates and plaintiffs had arguable grounds that discovery and expert evidence could rebut defendants' assertions; however the claim against the solicitor/firm under s164A LTA was not arguable as no private right of action was established and the certificate was intended for the Registrar, so summary judgment was granted for the third defendant on that cause of action.
16 Mar 2015

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v WALLIS & ANOR [2015] NZHC 501

Citation

[2015] NZHC 501
Court

High Court

The defendant's asserted defence that the plaintiff failed to register the intended mortgage over Lewis Street is not arguable because the defendants were not prejudiced by that omission and retained the capacity to apply sale proceeds to reduce indebtedness; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and specific performance of clause 2.3 was ordered to permit contractual default interest to accrue from 16 March 2015.
12 Jun 2012

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V PAVAN HC WN CIV-2012-485-000240

Citation

openlaw-f1765efa_0e52_463f_ac92_b8331bcbbbea.pdf
Court

High Court

The court construed the loan and guarantee documentation objectively and held that the second Basecorp loan and its guarantee created registrable security in the guarantors' personal land only for obligations under that specific Basecorp contract; the guarantee did not extend to secure the separate Guardian Trust loan assigned later to Basecorp, so Basecorp's enforceable security against 2 Cortina Avenue is limited to the balance of the second Basecorp loan (approximately $5,476.12 as at 30 April 2012), and Basecorp had no valid security over 5 Neville Street, 86 Woodland Road or the earthmov…
30 Aug 2010

SAGE SECURITIES LIMITED V HM ROOD, WFM ROOD, MJ ROOD AND ADVISORY TRUSTEES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-1150

Citation

openlaw-e54b2bd6_c8d7_428c_a314_4a6d1060d504.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that disclosure of borrowers, guarantors and most securities has largely occurred though not promptly, but the applicant has not yet satisfied the condition requiring it to take all reasonable steps to call up loans and to properly and promptly realise securities; pursuant to its power under s 290(7) Companies Act 1993 the Court ordered further reporting and specific directions to ensure perfection and realisation of securities and reserved costs.
11 Oct 2006

SOWRY HORT CO LIMITED V CROCKETT HC PMN CIV-2006-454-133

Citation

openlaw-f9230026_48c2_461f_a895_a2a405cb71a6.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the applicant succeeded in obtaining a permanent order sustaining the caveat, the application was properly brought after the respondent sought to register a mortgage, the respondent filed no formal opposition and participated in the consent memorandum, costs follow the event; accordingly the respondent is ordered to pay costs to the applicant calculated on a 2B basis together with disbursements as approved by the Registrar.