New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rates liability

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2020

TURNER v THE PUBLIC TRUST [2020] NZHC 92

Citation

[2020] NZHC 92
Court

High Court

The originating application was dismissed because the Court could not grant an injunction against the Public Trust due to s 17 Crown Proceedings Act 1950, the applicant failed to establish a good arguable case given the Associate Judge's prior adverse decision and the right to occupy did not provide sufficient basis for freezing relief, and the applicant's inordinate delay and prejudice to beneficiaries made interim relief inappropriate.
22 Feb 2018

Re. DAWSON and DAWSON [2018] NZHC 207

Citation

[2018] NZHC 207
Court

High Court

Because the mortgagees had an equitable and secured interest, had been unable to recover their loan, had paid outstanding rates, and all other interested parties either consented or did not object, the Court was satisfied under s119(3) that it was fair to vest the fee simple estates in the applicants and therefore granted the vesting order.
16 Nov 2017

HILL v MCIVOR [2017] NZHC 2817

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2817
Court

High Court

Court ordered sale and directed that the total proceeds be divided in accordance with the recorded ownership shares (69/83 to the Hills; 14/83 to Ms McIvor), subject to specified priorities: deduction of legal costs and disbursements, non-commission agent fees, apportioned commission and GST, repayment to applicants from respondent's 14/83 share of the payments applicants made to service the loan ($12,457.74) and the loan principal (current balance $85,458.43) including bank interest to settlement, equal sharing and payment of rates arrears, with the respondent receiving the remainder of her…
21 Jul 2016

FOOTSTEPS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1669

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1324
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute: the valuation objection lacked mandatory particulars and was properly rejected; filing an objection did not suspend the statutory obligation to pay rates; the statutory demand was a permissible enforcement mechanism not excluded by s63 LGRA; abatement notices remained presumptively valid and did not excuse non‑payment, so the statutory demand was not set aside.
14 Dec 2012

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V FOREST TRUSTEE LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003253

Citation

openlaw-a54de1e3_8cf9_43ee_b57a_19eea86c052e.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to liquidate failed because the statutory demand was not validly served on the company's registered office and the Council had not pleaded or given adequate notice that it would proceed on alternative grounds (inability to pay or just and equitable), so the Court would not decide those grounds on the material before it; additionally the alleged standing of the shareholder trustee was unsupported by production of the trust deed and the counterclaim did not justify refusing liquidation on the material before the Court.
20 Feb 2009

BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468

Citation

openlaw-0ef56e49_2d30_4888_abcd_ffb93749474b.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs of $800 was ordered because rule 20.13 creates a prima facie requirement for security, the appeal was assessed as weak on the clear statutory provisions (s12 and s60 LG(R)A 2002) and the appellant was not impecunious (owns unencumbered home); therefore it was not in the interests of justice to dispense with security.

New Zealand Case Law

TURNER v THE PUBLIC TRUST [2020] NZHC 92

Re. DAWSON and DAWSON [2018] NZHC 207

HILL v MCIVOR [2017] NZHC 2817

FOOTSTEPS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1669

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V FOREST TRUSTEE LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003253

BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468