New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court discretion

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2023

INTOP HOMES LIMITED v LOT 77 LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2418

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2418
Court

High Court

Intop did not have a caveatable interest when it lodged the caveat because it failed to follow the contractual mechanism in clauses 123 and 125 (no written demand and five working day cure period elapsed) required to create the right to demand a registrable memorandum of mortgage and thereby to register a caveat; the contingent security interest was therefore unperfected and did not survive cancellation, so the caveat must lapse.
6 Oct 2021

McEWEN v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2021] NZHC 2653

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2653
Court

High Court

Applicant had standing under s329(2)(a)(iii) and proved Eastzone Realty was a party to proceedings when removed; with consent from the Registrar and no objection from the Secretary to the Treasury or the removed company, the Court granted restoration under s329(1)(a)(ii)/(1)(a)(ii) and made ancillary orders for leave and Registrar compliance.
14 Jul 2021

HARVEY v HARVEY [2021] NZHC 1771

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1771
Court

High Court

The Court declined to appoint Robert as administrator because, although he is willing and has relevant background, his longstanding estrangement from the residuary beneficiary (Jatuporn) and her opposition meant appointment would not adequately have regard to her interests and would risk perceived lack of impartiality given pending Family Protection Act claims and disputed share transfers; appointment of Robert was therefore not expedient under s6(2) Administration Act and r27; appointment was deferred and parties directed to confer on an alternative appointment process.
30 Jun 2021

PRESTIGE MOTORS LIMITED v MY TRUSTEE COMPANY (NIKOLAS AND PETRA) LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1540

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1540
Court

High Court

Because the respondent withdrew the Property Law Act notice after service of the applicant's urgent application — thereby granting the relief the applicant sought — the applicant was entitled to its claimed costs of $6,627.85; the additional claimed 'costs on costs' ($956) were not awarded because they were not part of the original costs claim and the reply raising them did not justify extra recovery.
1 Mar 2021

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 33

Citation

[2021] NZCA 33
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because the appeal raised matters of general and wide public importance and the New Zealand Law Society, by reason of its statutory functions and expertise, could provide suitably focused submissions that would assist the Court without expanding the issues, lengthening the hearing, or materially increasing costs; accordingly NZLS was granted leave to intervene and there was no order as to costs.
28 May 2020

CBCH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED ex parte STRAWBRIDGE, MARSDEN and TRACY [2020] NZHC 1146

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1146
Court

High Court

The court has statutory power under ss 239AT and 239ADO, and the COVID-19 emergency provisions reinforce discretion to extend time; given COVID-19 disruption to sale processes, the need to coordinate with Australian administrations and the prospect of better returns to creditors via a mothballing-and-sale strategy, the court should exercise its discretion to extend the convening period to 2 September 2020.
18 Feb 2020

HENSHAW v ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2020] NZHC 201

Citation

[2020] NZHC 201
Court

High Court

The Court approved the creditors' proposal because it was in proper form, was approved by the requisite majority, will return 100 cents in the dollar to creditors, and the Court exercised its discretion to overlook service anomalies after the trustee remedied and explained them; approval does not set a precedent that email service alone constitutes good service without compliance with s224(1).
27 May 2019

TAIKOREA PROPERTIES LTD PARTNERSHIP v CZC GROUP LTD [2019] NZHC 1175

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1175
Court

High Court

Because the respondent had not paid rent since October 2018, had not filed any opposition, and failed to engage in the process except at the last minute, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the applicant's amended orders: cancellation of the lease and transfer of possession on 1 July 2019, with updated costs as specified in the applicant's memorandum.
4 Jul 2018

R G GARLICK and D L GARLICK [2018] NZHC 1634

Citation

R G GARLICK and D L GARLICK [2018] NZHC 1634
Court

High Court

The court granted approval because the statutory requirements of ss 327, 330 and 331 were satisfied, the proposals were accepted by the required majorities representing all indebtedness, the proposals were reasonable and beneficial to creditors, and no grounds under s 333(3) existed to refuse approval.
25 May 2018

ARMSTRONG v KEENAN [2018] NZHC 1196

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1196
Court

High Court

Where entrenched conflict between co-trustees prevents proper administration and causes asset deterioration or accruing liabilities, the court may remove trustees in the beneficiaries' interests; on the facts the conflict made joint administration impracticable, the estate modest and at risk, and the applicant was found suitable to act alone, so removal of the two trustees and appointment of the applicant as sole executor/trustee was ordered.