16 Aug 2023
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient information or evidential basis, failed to meet essential procedural requirements (no statement of claim, no service, no address for service), and the proceeding and subsequent appeal amounted to a misuse of court resources and an abuse of process.
2 May 2023
The defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to transfer the agreed one-sixth unit title; the defendant had agreed post-settlement to transfer the accessway title and took steps to do so but could not complete execution due to an invalidly executed power of attorney and residence in Russia; accordingly the appropriate and necessary remedy is a declaration that the defendant is bound by the agreement and authorization for the Registrar of the High Court to execute the Authority and Instruction to transfer the title to the plaintiff, consistent with precedent.
12 Feb 2021
The Court granted the vesting order under s 52(1)(h) because the chain of succession established the present beneficiaries (Coleman two-thirds; Guy one-third), both beneficiaries consented, and substantial practical and legal obstacles made ordinary transfers impracticable; therefore it was expedient and for the benefit of the trust to vest the land in the identified beneficiaries to enable them to deal with the property.
4 Oct 2019
On the evidence the Court inferred that the company held the property on trust for Hector Keeley (notwithstanding a director's misleading declaration), the Crown did not oppose vesting, and consequently a vesting order should be made under s 52(1)(h) of the Trustee Act 1956 to vest the property in the applicants.
9 Sept 2019
The Court was satisfied on the affidavit evidence that the existing trustees were medically incapacitated and had been replaced, that a vesting order under s 52 was necessary to vest the property in the current trustees, and that commencing the proceedings without notice and granting the order on the papers was appropriate; accordingly the Court made the vesting order.
7 Dec 2018
Because the defendant had retired as trustee, had consented to appointment of the corporate trustee and signed necessary authorities, but could not be located and a subsequent statutory change prevented registration, the court was justified in exercising its statutory power under s 52 of the Trustee Act 1956 to vest the properties in the current trustees; there was no prejudice to the absent trustee and no beneficial interest to protect.
24 May 2017
The rock anchors were buried, fixed and intended to provide permanent land stabilisation required by resource and building consents; they accordingly became fixtures and part of the respective parcels of land owned from time to time, so their presence could not constitute a continuing trespass and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Aug 2016
A vesting order under s 52 Trustee Act 1956 was necessary and appropriate because the respondent was medically incapable of signing the transfer, the District Land Registrar required a vesting order to proceed, a discretionary beneficiary had been served and consented, and inclusion of the retired trustee in the initial vesting was required to enable the subsequent registration that would leave the continuing trustees as registered proprietors.
2 Mar 2016
The Court exercised its statutory jurisdiction under s52 of the Trustee Act 1956 and, on the evidence that a registered proprietor (J A Short) is mentally incapacitated and unable to execute transfers and that vesting was required to effect a sale, ordered that the two specified Torrens title properties be vested in the current trustees; the Court also granted leave under High Court Rules Part 19 and dispensed with further service.
10 Oct 2008
LPA2 was paid out and extinguished on 28 March 2004; from that date the RA and CCA operated as distinct refinancing/loan agreements and any hire purchase characteristics ceased to apply, so the appellants remained liable under the refinancing guarantees and the appeal is dismissed.