New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reversionary interest

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2014

LISTER v PEGG AYTON GORDON TRUSTEE LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 2553

Citation

(2014) 16 NZCPR 161
Court

High Court

The deceased (Mr Lister) held only a beneficial life estate; that interest terminated on his death and the property reverted to Mrs Lyons' estate as a remainder held on trust for the Wilson Home Trust; s 64 Property Law Act 2007 did not apply because the estate or interest in land was not subject to a gift over as required by s 64; accordingly the Associate Judge correctly struck out the applicant's claim against the Wilson Home Trust.
23 May 2011

STOCKCO LIMITED V TAWHITI-ARIKI LIMITED & Or HC AK CIV-2010-404-003413

Citation

openlaw-81a9eb8b_f9d2_44d7_8483_7bab1bec3041.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to recall the 29 April 2011 judgment is dismissed because the judge did not overlook the second cause of action but intentionally declined to decide it as unnecessary in light of findings on other causes; Rule 11.9 does not permit recall in these circumstances and the correct remedy for StockCo is appeal.
28 Apr 2011

STOCKCO LIMITED V TAWHITI-ARIKI LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-003413

Citation

openlaw-0ce5b2b0_a073_459b_88f2_2fdba944a030.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiff was owner but lacked an immediate possessory right to sue in conversion because the livestock agreements created fixed-term bailments giving possession to the bailee and the bailee's conduct did not repudiate the bailment; plaintiff could, however, sue for permanent injury to its reversionary interest. Damages equated to sale proceeds less an equitable set-off for grazing/management costs and adjustments for unsold stock, resulting in judgment for plaintiff against first defendant for $305,887.17 plus 5% interest from 17 May 2010; costs to lie where they fall.
25 Mar 2009

CAMERON V PHELPS AND DOUCH HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-002648

Citation

openlaw-584bd6ef_4029_4b8d_807b_c2b6a2d5bc43.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held appellant had the superior right to possession upon failure of the venture and non-payment and defendants sold the machine without right; PPSA did not displace the common law claim in conversion; defendants were not innocent purchasers entitled to restitution for improvements; measure of loss is market value at time of sale and the best evidence of loss was the sale proceeds of $30,000, so judgment for appellant for $30,000 plus prescribed interest was appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

LISTER v PEGG AYTON GORDON TRUSTEE LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 2553

STOCKCO LIMITED V TAWHITI-ARIKI LIMITED & Or HC AK CIV-2010-404-003413

STOCKCO LIMITED V TAWHITI-ARIKI LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-003413

CAMERON V PHELPS AND DOUCH HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-002648