30 Oct 2019
URLICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 2783
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 2783
- Court
- High Court
Applicant does not have a reasonably arguable case that he is a 'successor' under s40(5) PWA because he only possessed a contingent interest at his father's death and therefore would not have been entitled to the land at that date; the Court is bound by the Court of Appeal's interpretation in Williams v Auckland Council; accordingly the caveat is not sustained but proceedings are adjourned and the caveat is maintained temporarily to permit appeal or further orders.