9 May 2017
The court held the applicants were successful on the discrete application to sustain the caveats and costs should follow the event; LINZ delay or alleged misconduct and late service of the affidavit did not provide sufficient discretionary grounds to deny costs to the applicants; indemnity or augmented costs were not justified and costs awarded on the 2B scale with claimed disbursements allowed.
31 May 2016
Costs were to be fixed immediately on the discrete caveat preservation proceeding; applicant succeeded and was entitled to costs on a 2B basis with a 30% uplift for unnecessary costs caused by the trustees' refusal to accept the $5,000 compromise offer, totalling NZD 11,390.60; indemnity costs were not justified and the use of s145A was not in itself unreasonable.
4 Sept 2013
The caveat was sustained because the applicant articulated a reasonably arguable equitable interest based on alleged monetary contributions and a shared expectation giving rise to a potential constructive trust; significant disputes of fact about source and terms of funds could not be conclusively resolved on summary interlocutory application and therefore the caveat must remain until trial or further order.
4 Jul 2008
The judge found the plaintiff's evidence corroborated by third parties created sufficient prima facie plausibility of a beneficial one‑third interest by way of constructive trust to merit further investigation; accordingly the caveat must be preserved, subject to conditions requiring prompt commencement of substantive proceedings and an undertaking as to damages.
19 Jun 2008
The court held that the applicants' notice to the registrar of the application to preserve the caveat was effective from the date the registrar's notice permitted (service by post because no fax address was specified), so the caveat had not already lapsed for procedural noncompliance; however, on the substantive merits the applicants failed to establish an arguable constructive trust interest of sufficient contribution or reasonable expectation, their prior settlement and delay undermined their claim, and Fulton Hogan had an equitable interest and was a bona fide purchaser for value without n…