New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Caveats

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2023

HINDS v SONG and DONG [2023] NZHC 3285

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3285
Court

High Court

The application to transfer was dismissed because the pleaded relief and pleaded contributions currently exceed the District Court monetary jurisdiction, the claim is sufficiently complex (multiple properties, extended time period, cultural and translation issues, caveats remaining) that the High Court is the more appropriate forum, and even a proposed capping of relief did not make the District Court clearly more suitable; accordingly the discretion to transfer under s 94 was not exercised.
1 Sept 2023

WU & Ors v XING [2023] NZHC 2409

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2409
Court

High Court

The applications to set aside the bankruptcy notices were dismissed because Mr Zhong failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim in liability and quantum equal to or exceeding the judgment debts; his asserted entitlement to settlement proceeds was incorrect (funds payable to Green Land and held in trust), many asserted claims re-litigated issues already determined, and pending appeals or stay applications do not constitute cross-claims under s17.
7 Jul 2023

GOLDLINE PROPERTIES LIMITED v MARSH [2023] NZCA 285

Citation

[2023] NZCA 285
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 134(4) must be read in the context and purpose of s 134 as a whole; the prohibitions in s 134(1)–(2) look to the outcome of the transaction and can be contravened by an agent acquiring an interest after contract entry; accordingly a client may cancel a contract made or brought about in contravention of s 134 even where the agent's interest arises post-execution if the statutory consent/valuation requirements were not met.
4 Jul 2023

SEED HOUSING LTD v HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND INC [2023] NZHC 1705

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1705
Court

High Court

SEED held an equitable interest sufficient to support the caveat; Racing Industry Act 2020 s21 applies prospectively from its commencement and required Harness Racing consent for transfers after 1 July 2020 but refusal to consent did not render the agreement illegal or automatically cancelled; the Court refused to remove the caveat because SEED would be prejudiced and there was an arguable basis for further proceedings including judicial review of Harness Racing's decision.
23 Feb 2023

MARSH v GOLDLINE PROPERTIES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 281

Citation

(2023) 23 NZCPR 893
Court

High Court

Section 134(4) must be assessed by reference to the state of affairs at the time the contract was made or brought about; where an agent acquires an interest only after the contract was made and no conflict existed at formation, s134(4)(a) and s134(4)(b) do not authorise cancellation; accordingly the applicant's caveats must be sustained pending substantive proceedings.
9 Dec 2022

LI v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3321

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3321
Court

High Court

The application to vary the interim injunction was dismissed because the applicant failed to produce admissible evidence demonstrating a valid, served PLA notice had expired unremedied, and because the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction pending substantive resolution and appeal; lifting the injunction would prematurely determine rights and frustrate relief available to plaintiffs.
12 Apr 2022

CHRISTINE MARAMA COWAN v JOHN ARTHUR COWAN [2022] NZSC 43

Citation

[2022] NZSC 43
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that where a second caveat is authorised following lapse/removal, the authorising court may require a substantive undertaking as to damages; because the appellants failed to provide an undertaking of substance and had delayed prosecuting substantive proceedings, the undertaking condition imposed by the Court of Appeal was not satisfied and the caveat was rightly removed to protect the registered proprietor from substantial and growing loss.
28 Feb 2022

HUA XIANG HOMES LTD & ORS v DDL HOMES ORMISTON LTD [2022] NZHC 313

Citation

(2022) 22 NZCPR 902
Court

High Court

Applicants demonstrated a reasonably arguable equitable interest, provided an adequate explanation for the one‑day late filing and notification, and the respondent would not suffer significant prejudice; therefore, in the interests of justice the court exercised its discretion under s146 to permit the applicants to lodge second caveats to restore the status quo.
1 Sept 2021

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZCA 421

Citation

[2021] NZCA 421
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the extension under r29A for CA646/2020 because the delay was short, caused by an error of the High Court, caused little or no prejudice to the respondent, and the interests of justice favored allowing the appeal despite its weak apparent merits; it declined the r43 extension in CA95/2021 because the proposed appeal was not genuinely arguable, the delay was unexplained, and permitting it would be contrary to the interests of justice given overlapping relief available in CA646/2020.
30 Aug 2021

POWELL v K 2 INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2253

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2253
Court

High Court

K2 New Zealand's pleaded defence and counterclaim were struck out because Kemeny lacked authority to litigate for K2 New Zealand; however the loan agreement was valid and enforceable against K2 New Zealand by virtue of the indoor management rule (s18 Companies Act) because Powell dealt with the sole director. Powell made the agreed advance. The Court reopened the credit contract under the CCCFA limited to a delay adjustment because Powell's extended delay in enforcing his rights (post-caveat judgment) rendered continued accrual of the default penalty oppressive. K2 New Zealand held a 50% equi…