1 Jun 2022
The Court found that D & P held the property on trust for the plaintiffs, that the High Court retains the necessary inherent jurisdiction post-Trusts Act 2019 to vest title in equitable beneficiaries, and that it was just and equitable to transfer title to the plaintiffs subject to existing mortgage and interests (order granted).
21 Dec 2020
Time was extended to consider the application but leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise a question capable of serious argument nor public or private interest sufficient to justify the cost and delay of a second appeal; the High Court clarified and expanded prior orders to expressly transfer title from Mr Mills to Mr Peterson and ordered return/transfer of interest and funds advanced from the overdraft to permit compliance with sale orders under s 43 CCLA.
16 Sept 2020
The Agreement had been cancelled and, under s 43 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, the Court was empowered to grant pragmatic relief; the appropriate relief was to transfer title of the two properties to Peterson, to require Mills to return the $40,000 (with interest under s 62B DCA 1947) to enable Peterson to sell the Ruatiti property with proceeds applied to ASB mortgages and overdraft and any shortfalls and residuals distributed as directed, with Porongahau to be sold if proceeds insufficient; the digger was not proven to be included and no award for it or logging proceeds was m…
14 Apr 2014
The deed executed by the parties expressly acknowledged that the defendants held the two properties as trustees for the plaintiff and required transfer; accordingly the court declared that the properties are held on trust for the plaintiff and ordered transfer of title, authorizing the Registrar to sign transfer documents if the defendant fails to do so within seven days.
8 Apr 2010
The plaintiff produced no credible evidence of loss causally connected to the defendant's conduct; therefore none of the plaintiff's pleaded causes of action could succeed and summary judgment was entered for the defendant.
12 Aug 2009
The Court declared Mr Farmer to be the beneficial owner of a one half share of the property, held that Mr Ellis holds that one half share on trust for Mr Farmer, and ordered LINZ to transfer a one half share to Mr Farmer subject only to the registered Westpac mortgage, with caveats and charges to affect only Mr Ellis' half; the Court further ordered sale procedures and division of proceeds as specified, while preserving Westpac's mortgagee rights.
21 Sept 2004
The Court dismissed the appellant's approach for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed Heath J's conclusion that the claim against the Department disclosed no viable cause of action because court officers had no duty to give legal advice or to remedy defective filings and no loss resulted from any registry delay as the substantive vesting order was upheld.