New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of nomination

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2023

WANG v FUTURE URBAN LTD [2023] NZHC 2609

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2609
Court

High Court

Future Urban's nomination was misleading because it conveyed the deed would be effective despite no prior written vendor consent or covenant; Wang proved wasted preparatory expenses causally caused by the nomination and is entitled to reimbursement of $29,686.30 plus statutory interest; Wang failed to prove causation for the claimed opportunity loss and emotional harm and failed to establish a debt against Wei for $20,000 due to lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence, so those claims fail.
31 Oct 2019

MO & OR v YANG & OR [2019] NZHC 2712

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2712
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants had no defence to the claim for a resulting trust; contemporaneous documents and communications (WeChat messages, solicitor emails, settlement paperwork) raised genuine, credible factual disputes about whether the parties agreed a one-third share plus loan arrangement and whether plaintiffs waived nomination rights, issues that cannot be resolved at summary judgment and require trial.
10 May 2017

TRAVERS PROJECT LIMITED v PRIME PROPERTY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 940

Citation

[2017] NZHC 940
Court

High Court

The Deed of nomination was effective and created an equitable interest in Prime which, on the evidence, Prime lawfully holds; Travers failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that the Deed was conditional on a completed joint venture, that fiduciary breach would lead equity to restore Travers' purchaser interest, or that repudiation re-vested the property in Travers; accordingly Prime's caveat is arguable and Travers' caveat is unsupportable and was ordered removed.
30 Nov 2016

JIN v KNOX PROPERTY INVESTMENT LIMITED [2016] NZCA 565

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 280
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment because the appellant had established a reasonably arguable case that his $50,000 payment gave rise to a resulting trust in relation to the right to purchase the property and that KPIL knew or could be attributed with knowledge of that interest; accordingly the caveat should have been sustained and the issues resolved at trial.
15 Sept 2016

ZHOU v ARMADALE NINTEEN LTD [2016] NZHC 2191

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2191
Court

High Court

Armadale Ninteen was contractually obliged by the Deed of Nomination to account to Mr Zhou for the deposit and failed to do so; the written loan to Mr Qiu contained no repayment date and thus was repayable on demand, and Mr Zhou proved he made demand (oral demands corroborated by subdivision timing), therefore judgment is entered for $250,000 against Armadale Ninteen and $200,000 against Mr Qiu with interest from 7 October 2015 and costs jointly against both defendants.
21 Oct 2015

DENG v LU [2015] NZHC 2585

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2585
Court

High Court

Leave was granted for the father to lodge a second caveat because evidence established a reasonably arguable case that a 19 March 2015 deed validly nominated/vested interest in the father and that the $160,000 pre-payment coupled with the pre-auction and auction agreements gave rise to an arguable equitable entitlement warranting interim protection; prejudice to respondents was limited by existing deposits; the son's caveat was ordered to lapse as redundant because the father's caveat preserves the claimed interest; relief was granted subject to strict procedural conditions (file substantive…
3 Jul 2015

DENG v LU & ANOR [2015] NZHC 1531

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1531
Court

High Court

The cancellation of the original deed of nomination by the subsequent deed reverted enforcement rights to the purchaser (the son); the applicant (father) therefore lacked an equitable right to enforce the sale and purchase and failed to establish a reasonably arguable interest to sustain the caveat, so the caveat could not be maintained.
6 Aug 2008

VILLAGE LIFESTYLES LTD V JEE HING LEE HC AK CIV 2008-404-001639

Citation

openlaw-06a4b063_0ee2_4953_97a4_21587959f136.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiff had standing: the nomination combined with conduct and s4 Contracts (Privity) Act meant the nominee's rights could be enforced; the assignment to plaintiff was valid and took effect from notice (11 January 2008) after consideration was paid, so plaintiff could sue. However, the defendant raised a tenable factual defence (alleged forgery/existence of an earlier agreement and disputed alterations) that could not be resolved on affidavits alone; accordingly the summary judgment application was adjourned to permit forensic handwriting examination and further hearing.