16 Jun 2022
The stay was refused because the applicants challenged the correctness of the Maori Land Court's ownership finding rather than pursuing an appeal (and the appeal period had expired), their assertion that New Zealand law did not apply was rejected, and enforcement would not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice.
26 May 2022
Application dismissed because applicant failed to establish a genuine and substantial dispute: contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence credibly support the respondent's position that the deceased purchased and owned the yacht and that MY Templar recorded and accepted a debt; no credible evidence of a common intention or traceable advance sufficient to establish a resulting trust or agency; cash advances calculation was supported by the estate's analysis, so statutory demand stands.
17 May 2022
The Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the cash and the 2003 Audi were tainted property and that the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; the respondent had effectively consented to forfeiture by signed statement and by not opposing; accordingly, under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (including s53) a forfeiture order was properly made by consent fixing the benefit and maximum recoverable amount at $244,065 and directing realisation of the specified assets.
8 Apr 2022
Grant preservation because applicant demonstrated a prima facie claim to an interest in the Vehicles and there were good reasons to preserve them: the defendant's undertaking did not bind third parties; an unexplained and unusual PPSR financing statement raised real concerns; the Vehicles were insured in the plaintiff's name with unknown compliance; and custody/storage was unclear, creating a real risk to the plaintiff's interests; accordingly the Vehicles must be surrendered to and held by the plaintiff (liquidators) pending further order.
7 Sept 2021
s 284(1)(a) does not empower the Court to make substantive, binding determinations resolving ownership disputes against third parties in summary originating applications; the section is supervisory and intended to direct the liquidator in the conduct of the liquidation. The applicants must pursue ordinary proceedings (or appropriate summary judgment procedure after regularisation) to determine ownership.
26 Jul 2021
On the balance of probabilities the court found the lotto ticket and winnings belonged to the first plaintiff; there was no persuasive evidence of gifts by the second plaintiff to the defendants; although no formal 50/50 contract was proven the first plaintiff made a substantial cash contribution and had a reasonable expectation of a 50% beneficial interest, therefore the defendants hold the property subject to a constructive trust giving the first plaintiff a 50% beneficial interest; the second plaintiff's life interest and its valuation are reserved; laches does not bar the claim.
2 Aug 2018
Having been informed that 18 Wastney Terrace is not owned by the respondent but by another person of the same name, and given the respondent's non-participation and undertaking to investigate, the Court discharged the charging order as it did not properly apply to the respondent.
30 Jul 2018
The court ordered a limited non-party affidavit under r 8.21 because the applicant demonstrated a substantive right to the records independent of the proceeding and there was genuine doubt whether additional documents remained with the non-party; the affidavit must state whether any documents not already handed over in 2015 remain and must disclose communications with the defendants relating to matters in issue, with the non-party entitled to actual and reasonable costs.
15 Mar 2018
Because a final judgment of the Court has conclusively determined that the plaintiffs do not have an interest in Identifier NL686587, res judicata applies and the plaintiffs cannot establish the arguable case required to sustain the caveat, so the caveat must lapse.
13 Feb 2014
On the balance of probabilities the Court rejected Tamatea and his witness as not credible, accepted vendor accounts and evidence of control by the first respondent, found Tamatea lacked funds and documentary support for his asserted purchases, concluded the vehicles were owned by the first respondent and therefore tainted property, and ordered forfeiture to the Crown.