11 Jun 2019
Given the mixed outcome—Urban Flooring made a substantial payment but Flooring Centre claimed an excessive amount and withdrew the balance for District Court resolution—the court exercised its discretion and ordered costs to lie where they fall rather than awarding costs to either party.
25 Jul 2013
The Court held there was no binding variation or estoppel: the alleged variation was not proposed by a person who knew the Trust Deed notice regime and there was no clear representation, reliance or detriment; Auckland Council retained an insurable interest in Watercare assets by virtue of statutory rights and concurrent statutory obligations; the contract was not frustrated or impossible to perform; therefore Auckland Council is liable to pay the invoiced contribution and LAPP may recover actual reasonable recovery costs.
5 Sept 2012
The Official Assignee, representing the bankrupt as trustee, had the right to recover the acknowledged debt and to be indemnified from and charge the assets of the two trusts to the extent of that debt (plus interest and costs); accordingly judgment for the specified sum, interest and declaratory relief was entered in favour of the plaintiff.
10 Mar 2011
The signed loan agreement read together with the tenancy agreement reflected the joint intention that the Tokleys lent $280,000 to the Robinsons repayable on specified events; the non est factum plea failed because the defendant knew the character and effect of the documents; allegations of estoppel or acquiescence and of a beneficial interest in the Karaka property were rejected on the evidence; therefore plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $280,000 plus interest at 1% per annum from 18 December 1994 and costs.
8 Dec 2010
The Court declined the extension of time because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay and further delay would prejudice the respondent; consequently the stay of execution was also declined and costs were awarded to the respondent.
12 Oct 2009
The adjournment was refused because the grounds advanced were not new, the defendant had ample time since May 2008 to seek legal aid or take steps to be ready, the medical condition was known and treatable and did not justify delay, and the balance of interests favoured proceeding with the longstanding, straightforward debt recovery fixture.