New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separate legal personality

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2017

MAHON v THE STATION AT WAITIRI LIMITED [2017] NZCA 387

Citation

(2017) 18 NZCPR 760
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because none of the asserted grounds for a caveatable interest are reasonably arguable: the alleged agreements concerned transfer of shares in a company (not direct transfer of the land), and a shareholder has no proprietary interest in company assets sufficient to support a caveat; accordingly part performance, constructive trust or equitable estoppel claims cannot establish a caveatable proprietary interest in the land on these facts; factual disputes do not suffice to sustain a caveat.
9 Jul 2014

P L BROWN FARMS LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZHC 1601

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1601
Court

High Court

There was no legally enforceable nexus between Farms' borrowing (and interest expense) and the income‑earning activities of Farms because the borrowed funds were on‑lent to separate companies that purchased the assets; there was no evidence of an agreement or barter linking foregone interest to reduced rent, and therefore the interest was not deductible under s DA 1; the TRA decision upholding the Commissioner was correct.
11 Mar 2014

T W KATAVICH v HALDEMAN LLC & ORS [2014] NZHC 437

Citation

[2014] NZHC 437
Court

High Court

The third defendant was entitled to a separate award of costs because it was a distinct legal entity that filed its own statement of defence, made separate discovery (including a separate affidavit), and incurred distinct attendances for case management and inspections; there was no material double charging with the first and second defendants, and therefore costs were awarded to each defendant in the specified sums.
5 Jun 2012

O'CONNOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-004779

Citation

openlaw-2ae1d3c7_7ab8_4722_b0ba_9930118f4024.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's costs order was invalid because it acted beyond its jurisdiction under s91 by treating Mr O'Connor as a party; he was not the claimant in his personal capacity and any application was made by Overview Trustee Limited, a separate legal entity, so the costs order against him must be set aside.
25 Aug 2010

HOLMES CAPITAL LIMITED V MARRA HC AK CIV-2009-463-822

Citation

openlaw-e868aa26_3596_4a50_9079_253101d7c875.pdf
Court

High Court

Because there was a bona fide dispute of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the true creditor and whether there was honest belief in a genuine claim (hence whether consideration supported the compromise), summary judgment was inappropriate and must be dismissed to allow trial of the issue.

New Zealand Case Law

MAHON v THE STATION AT WAITIRI LIMITED [2017] NZCA 387

P L BROWN FARMS LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZHC 1601

T W KATAVICH v HALDEMAN LLC & ORS [2014] NZHC 437

O'CONNOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-004779

HOLMES CAPITAL LIMITED V MARRA HC AK CIV-2009-463-822