New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Property (relationships) act

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2023

RE ESTATE OF HUNG CHING [2023] NZHC 1454

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1454
Court

High Court

Assess costs on a 2B basis using the case management time allocation (item 11 and 13); indemnity costs were not justified despite some misconceived grounds by the caveator; increased costs are appropriate because costs will be paid from the estate and a reasonable reference is two‑thirds of the actual costs, but court fixed a modest increased award of $2,000 rather than indemnity or full two‑thirds of actual costs.
2 May 2023

RE ESTATE OF HUNG CHING [2023] NZHC 1013

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1013
Court

High Court

The caveator failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2021 will and failed to show good cause to sustain the caveat; consequently the Order Nisi should be made absolute while statutory and common‑law protections allow interested parties to pursue PRA or FPA claims within permitted periods.
9 Jun 2022

SMITH v ENDEAN [2022] NZHC 1246

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1246
Court

High Court

The caveat was dismissed because the claimant's equitable constructive trust claim to the deceased's half share is precluded by the Property (Relationships) Act which governs property between spouses; alternatively, even if not precluded, the claimant failed to establish a reasonable expectation in the deceased's half share and contributions were insufficient to found a constructive trust, so no arguable proprietary interest existed to sustain the caveat.
12 Oct 2018

COOK v ROMANES and [2018] NZHC 2650

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2650
Court

High Court

Proceeding is not an abuse of process but liquidation is a drastic remedy and there is a reasonable likelihood of alternative remedies (including s182 Family Proceedings Act orders and Partnership Act dissolution); accordingly further steps in the liquidation proceeding are stayed and parties directed to pursue alternative remedies and report back at a case management conference before the court proceeds.
20 Oct 2016

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION & ORS v DOTCOM & ORS (NO 3) [2016] NZHC 2509 [20 October 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2509
Court

High Court

The court refused to vary the freezing order: the release of a third vehicle was unjustified given available vehicles and lack of necessity; the proposed transfer of The Prom to Mrs Dotcom could not be permitted because the PRA was of doubtful validity in light of an existing restraining order and s 135 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and would risk dissipation and prejudice creditors; most personal possessions could not be released because of competing proprietary claims and the freezing order's purpose, though two items were released and electronic devices returned if not already provided.
22 May 2015

ALLOWAY v BOND [2015] NZHC 1113

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1113
Court

High Court

No important question of law or fact arose that required retention in the High Court; the Domestic Actions claim is within the Family Court's specialist jurisdiction and the tort claims are within District Court jurisdiction, so the proper course is to transfer the Domestic Actions claim to the Family Court and the tort causes to the District Court; statutory protections under the PRA render freezing orders unnecessary, so freezing and security for costs applications were dismissed.
16 Dec 2008

RUOCCO V WRIGHT HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 311

Citation

openlaw-3f2732dc_a7c6_49bf_b639_94271ba6c776.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 19(1) does not vest jurisdiction to appoint the Public Trustee where the named executor has no legal obligation to obtain probate because the estate's assets passed by survivorship and administration is lawfully concluded; mere omission to obtain probate after three months is insufficient to show the executor 'neglects or refuses' to prove the will and therefore s19(1) does not apply, and in any event judicial discretion would be exercised against appointment.
9 Jul 2007

WHETTON AND ORS V HARDY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004404

Citation

openlaw-cdeaa7ac_43ed_4230_820d_50095e620de8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that, narrowly, a serious question to be tried exists as to the alleged collateral term but on balance of convenience the interlocutory orders sought by the first defendant should be granted to permit the proposed refinancing to proceed pending trial, subject to conditions protecting the second defendant's entitlement (notably that any registerable discharge will not be registered until the second defendant's solicitors confirm receipt of clear funds of $135,694.20).
12 Apr 2006

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V A M WILSON & ANOR AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2004 425 74

Citation

openlaw-5ac8e2ba_963d_4cd3_a1b8_c731f16d033c.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to prove the requisite common intention that the trust arrangements were a sham; the transactions were genuine as they appeared; the trustees were not puppets of the settlor in the relevant transactions; accordingly the trust was not set aside and the Official Assignee's claim failed.