New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of claim / caveat

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2018

CASEY v CASEY [2018] NZHC 1930

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1930
Court

High Court

Mr Casey has no present caveatable beneficial interest in the Paremoremo property because as trustee he holds only legal title and he is not a beneficiary; clauses 30 and 31 do not create an immediate beneficial entitlement to non‑beneficiaries and therefore do not support a s42 notice; even if clause 31 were interpreted to give a present interest to a settlor such an interest would be relationship property but the applicant's rights are adequately protected by enforceable trust remedies so the s42 notice is not reasonably required and must be removed.
14 Nov 2017

NGAVAEVAE v HARRISON [2017] NZHC 2788

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2788
Court

High Court

On the limited affidavit evidence the applicant has demonstrated a reasonably arguable factual and legal case that she was in a qualifying de facto relationship with the respondent and therefore has an arguable interest in the property under the Property (Relationships) Act; in the interests of justice the Notice of Claim (caveat) is to be sustained pending resolution at trial; leave reserved for the respondent to apply if the applicant does not prosecute the claim expeditiously and costs are awarded to the applicant on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
24 Apr 2015

UNKOVICH v MARBECK [2015] NZHC 742

Citation

[2015] NZHC 742
Court

High Court

The applicant's s42 notice is reasonably arguable and must be sustained pending judicial determination because affidavit evidence (including trustee Hill) gives prima facie plausibility to the claim that transfers to trusts were part of a temporary scheme affecting beneficial interests; however the alleged collateral oral agreement cannot be upheld as voiding the written contracting out deed on the present material because it would contravene s24F and is vulnerable to the rule against pleading a fraudulent purpose; applicant must commence substantive proceedings by 28 May 2015.
29 Aug 2011

BURGESS V BEAVEN COA CA389/2011

Citation

COA CA389/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no longer a live justiciable issue following the mortgagee sale that discharged the notice of claim and the applicant conceded there was no question of public or general importance; accordingly the interests of justice did not justify granting leave.

New Zealand Case Law

CASEY v CASEY [2018] NZHC 1930

NGAVAEVAE v HARRISON [2017] NZHC 2788

UNKOVICH v MARBECK [2015] NZHC 742

BURGESS V BEAVEN COA CA389/2011