New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Caveat

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

KEREOPA v BRUNSHA LTD [2023] NZHC 3753

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3753
Court

High Court

The caveat was sustained because the applicant put forward a reasonably arguable case that an institutional constructive trust arose from the 2002 transactions giving her a beneficial interest, and it was arguable Brunsha (via directors Dennis and Heather) had or should be imputed with knowledge of that interest and intended the 2008 registration to defeat it, satisfying the threshold for potential Land Transfer Act fraud; the caveat's wording sufficiently described the claimed cestui que trust interest and its derivation; accordingly the caveat will be maintained conditionally pending substa…
18 Dec 2023

LAU v SILVER HARBOUR CAPITAL TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 3745

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3745
Court

High Court

The caveat was removed because it was defective on its face (purporting to protect an interest in a different certificate of title) and because any equitable interest asserted by the applicant, if it exists, is subordinate to the respondent's prior registered mortgage of which the respondent had no notice and does not prevent exercise of the mortgagee's power of sale; the caveat was an abuse of process and removal was ordered with indemnity costs to the respondent, while an injunction against further caveats was adjourned as beyond the Associate Judge's jurisdiction.
29 Nov 2023

PASUPATHY v ZAHIM [2023] NZHC 3415

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3415
Court

High Court

The Second Deed, at best, gave the applicant only a right to request a mortgage rather than a present equitable mortgage capable of supporting a caveat; alternatively, any actionable claim under the Deed is time-barred by the Limitation Act 1950/2010; accordingly there is no reasonably arguable basis to sustain the caveat.
29 Nov 2023

LIANG v HAN [2023] NZHC 3404

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3404
Court

High Court

The court concluded the caveat application was a misuse of the caveat process lodged for an ulterior purpose (to secure the respondent's property as security for a damages claim) and contained unsubstantiated serious allegations; this conduct justified an award of indemnity costs. The solicitors' claimed costs were reduced as high for the nature of the proceeding and indemnity costs were awarded at 80% of the claimed amount, resulting in $67,896.80 plus disbursements $3,473.54. A costs order against the non-party translator Mr Young was declined because evidence did not establish he was the '…
28 Nov 2023

SHAW v DIXON HOMES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3395

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3395
Court

High Court

Because the sustaining order was conditional on the caveators taking all reasonable steps to prosecute the substantive proceedings and the Shaws failed to comply (the substantive proceedings were struck out for failure to comply with timetabling orders), the balance of convenience shifted in favour of the proprietor and the caveat should lapse under s143(7).
24 Nov 2023

DAQIN HOLDING LIMITED v ELITE LEGAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3338

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3338
Court

High Court

Judgment for liability was entered because Elite Legal plainly breached an express contractual obligation to obtain a guaranteed title search; that breach is actionable in contract without proof of damage and the contested issues of causation, mitigation and third-party liability go to quantum not to whether the defendant breached its contract, so liability can be determined now and quantum reserved for trial.
15 Nov 2023

Estate of Bimla Singh [2023] NZHC 3219.

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3219
Court

High Court

Because no cause was shown in relation to the caveat and the remaining caveator consented to withdrawal, the court discharged the caveats and made the order nisi absolute, granting probate to the named executor; costs were left to be determined on a directed timetable if not agreed.
8 Nov 2023

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the joinder, leave to appeal, stay and set aside applications because the pleaded allegations did not disclose any tenable cause of action against the proposed join defendants; statutory breaches relied on (Companies Act s10, AML/CFT and LINZ certification) do not give rise to private causes of action or invalidate the transactions alleged; no arguable error of law or fact was identified to justify leave to appeal or a stay; costs were appropriately awarded against the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
1 Nov 2023

INTOP HOMES LIMITED v LOT 77 LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3057

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3057
Court

High Court

Award 2B costs because Intop's contractual interpretation arguments were not hopeless, its conduct did not amount to bad or very unreasonable behaviour required for indemnity costs, and the public interest in resolving the contract interpretation weighed against treating the application as improperly brought.
19 Oct 2023

WEBB v TEVIOTDALE [2023] NZHC 2921

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2921
Court

High Court

The caveat was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable proprietary interest; the evidence established at best a testamentary promise or expectation, contradicted by contemporaneous documents (2009 email), and the applicant only ever held a half-share and transferred the fee simple to the respondents, so no resulting trust over the property was reasonably arguable.