New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Chattels

  • 1 Sept 2020

    HOLMES v CROMBIE [2020] NZHC 2262

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 2262
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court upheld the Family Court judgment: Montgomery Place was relationship property due to intermingling of separate funds with joint relationship property (s10(2)), subject only to the respondent's concession to repay $90,811.64; the additional $10,000 deposit and $15,550.42 Bonus Bonds were not proven to be separate property; the $7,809.44 withdrawal from the joint account remained relationship property and must be returned to the pool; claims for missing chattels lacked sufficient evidence to award a specific sum; and services/payments to Fyfe did not establish a significant contri…

  • 6 Sept 2011

    NEW LYNN COMPLIANCE CENTRE LIMITED V BIRDWOOD CUSTODIANS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-1551

    Citation
    openlaw-19bb6757_d17f_4491_8528_79513e2ee1ca.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the lease required the tenant to pay 100% of the outgoings under clause 3.1 and the First Schedule; clause 26.1(a) is to be read as conferring a tenant-centred right to treat premises as terminated if untenantable, whereas a landlord wishing to terminate must follow clause 26.1(b) and give one month's notice (here given 20 November 2008), so the tenant was entitled to seven days thereafter to remove chattels under clause 32.1; Birdwood's denial of access from 17 December 2008 until March 2009 was technically a conversion but New Lynn Compliance failed to prove quantifiable…

  • 8 May 2008

    STEWART V SHIRREFFS HC AK CIV 2006-404-5548

    Citation
    openlaw-5761bcb4_9e52_4423_b876_b3ddf0c397b3.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The December 2006 negotiations and the Court's minute reserved chattels for later resolution so the Ford Explorer sale proceeds remained at large; accordingly s 11(1)(b) equal division applied and $44,000 was split equally ($22,000 to plaintiff) with interest at 6% from 1 June 2007; defendant's obstructive conduct and attempts to re-litigate matters justified a contribution of $9,000 to plaintiff's costs for December 2006–May 2007; fees for children's counsel and Ellis Gould (receiver's solicitors) to be borne equally; receiver/manager's $210,000 fee apportioned unequally ($120,000 defendant,…