3 May 2018
Heath J correctly dismissed the interim injunction because the plaintiffs had no seriously arguable case and there was no lack of authority to prevent the trustees signing the Vesting Agreement; assurances about the 'initial period' were relevant but did not alter that conclusion; accordingly respondents were entitled to costs, fixed at category 2 band B with certification for second counsel.
26 Apr 2017
On the evidential record the advances were made personally by Mr and Mrs Warin (not by the trusts), the advances were individual payments recoverable by each lender, the advances were repayable on demand, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidential foundation to raise an arguable defence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the specified amounts with interest.
16 Dec 2014
The Court found there was a serious question to be tried on whether the March 2007 document was a binding lease including a right of first refusal and whether that right survived to 2014; given GPL's long possession and payment of rent, the equivocal conduct of the Dempsters (including covert sale dealings and suppression of information), and the risk of irremediable loss to GPL, the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured granting interim mandatory possession and prohibitory orders subject to conditions (security, rent payments and undertaking as to damages).
21 May 2014
The stay was declined because WT delayed initiating substantive relief or offering an undertaking, the balance of convenience favoured the elderly trustees who required sale proceeds to fund retirement accommodation and would be prejudiced by delay, and the trustees could be adequately compensated by damages; consequently a stay pending appeal was refused.
14 May 2014
WT failed to show a reasonably arguable caveatable interest because no binding sale agreement existed: the draft agreement lacked the signature of the third trustee who had not authorised the others to bind him, the two signatures were conditional and there was no evidence of actual or ostensible authority to bind the absent trustee; accordingly the application to prevent lapse of the caveat was dismissed.
12 May 2006
The applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that an enforceable option existed: the communications show only an informal 'gentlemen's agreement', the Contracts Enforcement Act required a signed memorandum which was absent, and there was no evidence Mr Rowland-Jones had authority to bind the co-trustee; therefore the caveat could not be sustained and must lapse.