New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quistclose trust

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2021

SUMMIT CAPITAL LIMITED v ELEVEN HILLARY ACCOMMODATION LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2868

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2868
Court

High Court

It was premature to assess the quantum of Summit's equitable interest or to exercise discretion to decline to sustain the caveat on specified security because the evidence was insufficient and the respondent had not filed substantive opposition; the court therefore refrained from making any order and left the parties to agree security and return with a consent order.
16 Oct 2020

LI v 110 FORMOSA (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 492

Citation

[2020] NZCA 492
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed Li's appeal on fiduciary duty and Quistclose trust grounds because the parties' contractual joint venture did not create a general fiduciary obligation and the funds were applied for the agreed corporate purpose; however the Court upheld a proprietary remedy against Wang by imposing an institutional constructive trust over that proportion of Wang's shares in 110 Formosa representing Li's $4.8m contribution due to Wang's unconscientious appropriation of Li's shareholding; 110 Formosa was not liable for dishonest assistance as it was a bona fide purchaser for value without n…
8 Jun 2020

KUANG v CAI [2020] NZHC 1255

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1255
Court

High Court

Payments of $57,500 and $155,000 did not create proprietary interests in 64 Juniper Road capable of supporting a caveat: the payments were either conditional/for a failed purpose giving rise to restitutionary (in personam) claims, or were paid by a trustee company (for the $155,000) not the applicant; no resulting or Quistclose trust arose because the recipient had free disposal of the funds; therefore the caveat could not be sustained and must be removed (the court would, in the exercise of discretion, have ordered substitution of a fund of $63,500 if an arguable proprietary interest for $57…
19 Dec 2018

Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited [2018] NZHC 3418

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3418
Court

High Court

Plaintiff established on the balance of probabilities that the $4.8m deposited was beneficially his and that a resulting trust arose such that the proportion of Defendant Wang's shareholding representing that contribution is held on resulting trust for the plaintiff; plaintiff also established breach of contract by Wang entitling plaintiff to damages equal to the $4.8m contribution; other claims (constructive trust over land, fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, money had and received, negligent statutory breach and claims against 110 Formosa and Loo & Koo) were dismissed; remedies for resulti…
19 Oct 2016

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION & ORS v DOTCOM & ORS (NO 2) [2016] NZHC 2497 [19 October 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2497
Court

High Court

The ACL funds were not settled on the Trust Me Trust and, in any event, were properly characterised as subject to a Quistclose trust such that CTSL did not acquire a beneficial interest; assets in which the legal owner lacks a beneficial interest are not within the scope of the freezing order, therefore there was no breach by CTSL and Mr Dotcom did not assist a breach and so did not commit contempt.
17 Feb 2016

GRAHAM v ARENA CAPITAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 194

Citation

[2016] NZHC 194
Court

High Court

Post-APO deposits were subject to the statutory trust and, because the FMA asset preservation orders froze the account and prevented use of subsequent deposits, those post-APO deposits remained identifiable and traceable; accordingly they have a proprietary interest enforceable in priority to other investors and the liquidators' application to treat those funds as part of Arena's general assets was declined.
9 Mar 2015

REYNOLDS v CALVERT [2015] NZHC 400

Citation

[2015] NZHC 400
Court

High Court

The $740,000 was an advance made on 3 October 2006 and repayable on demand, but fraudulent concealment occurred when the accounts were recoded (by 21 September 2009) which postponed the commencement of the limitation period until the fraud was reasonably discoverable (6 January 2011); the liquidator's claim lodged 16 November 2012 was within time, entitling judgment for $740,000 and interest from 27 June 2012; alternative equitable and statutory claims failed for lack of loss or because they were inconsistent with the loan character.
24 Oct 2013

BECKER & ANOR v ANDERSON [2013] NZHC 2798

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2798
Court

High Court

Grant leave to file the amended statement of claim as to the first and second causes of action and to join Mrs Carol Anderson because those equitable claims pleaded as fraudulent breaches of fiduciary/trust obligations fall within s21(1) Limitation Act 1950 and are not caught by the ordinary six year limitation; the promissory estoppel/guarantee claim was refused as time barred because it merely recharacterised the previously advanced contract/oral guarantee claim and was analogous to the statute-barred claim so allowing it would outflank the limitation regime; prejudice and delay were consid…
12 Aug 2013

GREEN GECKO LIMITED v COX [2013] NZHC 2034

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2034
Court

High Court

The shares were originally allotted with a view to public offers and were offered to the public without a registered prospectus; under s6(7) the term 'issuer' includes the offeror of previously allotted securities, and as the registered holder/offeror Mr Cox was the issuer for purposes of s37(6); his status as a bare trustee or non-director did not absolve him as between the public and the registered offeror; therefore Green Gecko is entitled to repayment of $700,000 plus prescribed interest from the respective payment dates.
6 Aug 2013

GREEN GECKO LIMITED v COX [2013] NZHC 1951

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1951
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion under s76(2) to allow the proceeding to continue against the bankrupt second defendant because the plaintiff's claims were not clearly unsustainable, there was a real prospect that liability might involve fraud falling within s304(2)(a) (which is more appropriately determined by court procedure than by OA administration), and there are overlapping issues with co‑defendants; continuation was permitted subject to protective conditions preventing enforcement during bankruptcy and requiring particularised pleadings on fraud.