New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide purchaser

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2022

LI & ORS v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LTD & ORS [2022] NZHC 1906

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1906
Court

High Court

The court held that the evidence did not establish enforceable security over the plaintiffs' lots and that the notices relied on under the Property Law Act were non‑compliant (insufficient remedy period and failure to establish a due default). Consequently the mortgagee sales and transfers in respect of the plaintiffs' lots were void and of no effect. Green Land remains liable to perform the sale agreements with plaintiffs; plaintiffs' interlocutory injunctions are continued; Green Land's primary counterclaims were dismissed except for awarded trespass damages in respect of occupied lots.
13 May 2020

AUTON v AUTON (Stay of Judgment Application) [2020] NZHC 981

Citation

[2020] NZHC 981
Court

High Court

Because the sale had settled and the dealing had been submitted for registration prior to the interim stay taking effect, and because r 12 relief is confined to protecting the position to be decided on appeal and cannot grant orders affecting a non‑party purchaser, extending the interim stay would be futile and was discharged.
6 Dec 2012

NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LIMITED V FOREST TRUSTEE LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-001739

Citation

openlaw-4c971a8c_9a81_4e87_a67b_7bb5d25e6304.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence there was no reasonably arguable defence: formal documents bore the signatory's initials and signatures demonstrating knowledge; transfers and mortgagee dealings did not extinguish or negate Nags Head's priority because defendants had notice and equity prevents a mortgagor or related parties from subverting the priority; accordingly specific performance of the deed of priority and a declaration of priority were ordered.
18 Oct 2012

NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LTD V FOREST TRUSTEE LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001739

Citation

openlaw-cfb1bff3_1e12_44f3_9e8a_27fb6ba690e5.pdf
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried as to priority because the transfers and surrounding arrangements indicated the purchaser EOTL was not a bona fide arm's-length purchaser but part of transactions controlled by the Mawhinney group, so equitable rights under the rule in Otter v Vaux could bind the purchaser; the balance of convenience and interests of justice required preservation of the status quo pending the summary judgment hearing, therefore an interim injunction restraining dealings affecting mortgage 7998827.2 was granted.
9 Sept 2011

SOMME LIMITED v CENTRAL HOUSE MOVERS LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2011-483-2

Citation

openlaw-013aa192_7bbc_45cf_9e81_3d8279e2aa14.pdf
Court

High Court

Property in the houses passed to Vakamon on delivery and affixture and the houses were fixtures; CHML did not have an enforceable right to enter and remove the houses as owner; although CHML has an arguable equitable mortgage/counterclaims based on the deed of acknowledgment and the conduct of Vakamon and Somme, that does not constitute a defence to Somme's claim for conversion; because there are substantial triable issues (equitable mortgage, bona fide purchaser status, quantum and potential counterclaims) summary judgment is inappropriate and the application is dismissed.
26 Sept 2007

ROLAND JOHANNES NIJKRAKE V WILLIAM ROBERT MARSMAN, UTA BLEIDESTEL AND THK TRUSTEES LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2007-443-386

Citation

openlaw-37d2db34_4bd6_4fee_a7e5_755cf2b81455.pdf
Court

High Court

Court concluded plaintiff established a reasonably arguable case that Mr Marsman misappropriated Rowi funds and that those funds (or their proceeds) can be traced into the Omata property giving rise to an equitable proprietary interest via a constructive trust; accordingly the caveat should not lapse and the Court would not exercise its residual discretion to remove it pending resolution of the underlying foreign proceedings.
23 Aug 2004

BOTROS & ANOR V CLIST CA CA124/04

Citation

openlaw-64c84d91_32b5_44b2_a806_3c6628b5fe93.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave for a second appeal was declined because no tenable question of law was raised (an unregistered sketch cannot be set up against registered title) and concurrent factual findings in the lower courts established the respondent as a bona fide purchaser without knowledge, so the fraud exception did not apply, meaning the Waller v Hider test for leave was not met.

New Zealand Case Law

LI & ORS v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LTD & ORS [2022] NZHC 1906

AUTON v AUTON (Stay of Judgment Application) [2020] NZHC 981

NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LIMITED V FOREST TRUSTEE LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-001739

NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LTD V FOREST TRUSTEE LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001739

SOMME LIMITED v CENTRAL HOUSE MOVERS LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2011-483-2

ROLAND JOHANNES NIJKRAKE V WILLIAM ROBERT MARSMAN, UTA BLEIDESTEL AND THK TRUSTEES LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2007-443-386

BOTROS & ANOR V CLIST CA CA124/04