23 Feb 2018
Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable proprietary interest: affidavit evidence was hearsay and unreliable, contemporaneous records and evidence of a completed transaction were absent, and there was no evidence that any alleged beneficial interest passed to the applicant; therefore the caveat could not be sustained.
29 Oct 2013
The Court gave effect to the parties’ consent agreement: the application to prevent the caveat lapsing was dismissed on the condition that the respondent’s solicitors (Daniel Overton Goulding) give a written undertaking to pay $194,177.91 to the applicants’ solicitors within three working days of the notice of lapse appearing on the property identifier; consequential issues were left open and no order as to costs was made.
8 May 2012
The application for an interim freezing order and for a preservation order was dismissed because the applicant had not established any good arguable monetary or proprietary claim against the defendant and had failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets; preservation relief is unavailable absent a substantive proprietary claim; costs awarded to defendant on a 2B basis.
30 Nov 2011
Because only a portion of the sale proceeds (approximately NZD125,000–NZD140,000) was arguably traceable to the plaintiffs and the proprietary claim was unlikely to extend to the entire frozen sum, the court found it appropriate to vary the freezing order and permit limited releases: monthly living expenses (NZD4,500), specified lump sums for debt servicing (NZD1,450) and relocation/furnishing (NZD7,000), and monthly legal costs on a Category 2B basis with 30% uplift, conditioned to protect the plaintiffs' ability to proceed to trial and subject to review.