New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rectification of deed

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2021

BOOTH v BOOTH [2021] NZCA 112

Citation

[2021] NZCA 112
Court

Court of Appeal

Recall declined because applicant did not meet the strict Horowhenua criteria: no relevant new law or authority, no overlooked authority, and no very special reason; applicant had expressly disclaimed challenging the debt on appeal so recall cannot be used to advance an opposite case; recall would not enable challenge to the High Court rectification judgment which requires a direct appeal and the time for such appeal has passed.
25 Sept 2020

BOOTH v BOOTH [2020] NZCA 451

Citation

[2020] NZCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the arrangement was a vendor-finance debt owed by Poplar Road Farms Ltd to Ray Booth and not a nuptial settlement making continuing provision for spouses; forbearance did not create an enforceable settlement and there was no change of premise or injustice to be remedied under s182, and therefore the s182 claim was not arguable and summary judgment and strike-out were appropriate; the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the joined s182 claim when related PRA proceedings were before it.
19 Dec 2019

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 3445

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3445
Court

High Court

The High Court has jurisdiction to transfer the Property (Relationships) Act proceeding to the Family Court because s38A(4) deems transferred proceedings to have been commenced in the High Court, bringing s94 of the District Court Act (and s16 Family Court Act and supporting rules and authorities) into play; having resolved the rectification proceeding, the remaining issues are properly for the Family Court and transfer is in the interests of justice, so the High Court ordered transfer.
25 Sept 2019

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 2424

Citation

[2019] NZFLR 225
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was granted against the plaintiff: even accepting arguendo that the family arrangements might constitute a settlement, the alleged settlement was expressly conditional on the continuance of the marriage so there has been no failure of the premise on which any nuptial settlement was made and therefore no basis to exercise s 182(1) discretion to vary the settlement in the plaintiff's favour; additionally the pleading disclosed no arguable claim against the second and third defendants and that part of the claim was struck out.
4 Apr 2013

GILLESPIE V GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1629

Citation

openlaw-bc6d81d5_a217_4924_ac1a_8f6156559ecf.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law and on uncontested facts that he was a trustee entitled to rely conclusively on the trust deed's limitation and indemnity clauses and that the claims necessarily fall outside the irreducible core; factual disputes (appointment, capacity in which defendant acted) and the narrow construction of exclusion clauses mean the proceeding is not bound to fail and strike-out must be dismissed; plaintiffs given leave to reply and pursue further discovery.

New Zealand Case Law

BOOTH v BOOTH [2021] NZCA 112

BOOTH v BOOTH [2020] NZCA 451

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 3445

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 2424

GILLESPIE V GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1629