New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of caveat

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2019

LI v 110 FORMOSA (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 70

Citation

[2019] NZHC 70
Court

High Court

Application for stay dismissed and caveat discharged because discharge would not render the appeal nugatory, Fitzgerald J had conclusively rejected a proprietary interest in the land, the balance of convenience favoured allowing 110 Formosa to proceed (given prejudice and need for urgent funding and development), and a caveat cannot be used to secure monetary relief; revocation and discharge take effect 7 March 2019 with other undertakings noted.
6 Mar 2017

CLEAR WHITE INVESTMENTS LTD v OTIS TRUSTEE LTD [2017] NZHC 344

Citation

[2017] NZHC 344
Court

High Court

Because the appeal could not be determined promptly through no fault of the parties and Otis would be prejudiced by delay due to urgent decontamination and development financing needs, the interests of justice required restoring the parties to their pre-stay position; Otis offered adequate protective undertakings (mortgage priority cap $1,000,000; notification of defaults/Property Law Act notices; not transferring entire property pending trial), so the consent stay was set aside on filing of those undertakings and Otis may then take steps to remove the caveat.
4 Feb 2013

MIRA SAHIB COMPANY LIMITED V PL SAUNDERCOCK HC WN CIV-2012-485-1256

Citation

openlaw-2b7d6744_2b28_4e20_b5f1_7d29734caf38.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the applicant failed to comply with the prior order's conditions to commence and prosecute proceedings within the prescribed time, the applicant (and its sole director) lack the resources and capacity to pursue the claim, and the Official Assignee concurs that damages are an adequate remedy, the caveat must lapse.
31 Aug 2009

AKV2 LIMITED V AUCKLAND CONCRETE HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-005972

Citation

openlaw-83da1904_4629_44b4_8638_1517a571072a.pdf
Court

High Court

Even if the respondent had an arguable caveatable interest, it was unreasonable to maintain the caveat after the applicant offered to lodge the disputed sum in an interest bearing trust account and after warning of likely costs; accordingly costs and disbursements were awarded to the applicant and the solicitors' undertaking was released allowing funds to be paid to the applicant.
11 Jul 2007

RAISER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V TREFOIL PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-5883

Citation

openlaw-528e4aa4_0829_4e74_9eb7_20aa39b68134.pdf
Court

High Court

The caveat was removed because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court orders including an order to provide security for costs, the substantive proceeding was stayed as a result, there was no satisfactory evidence of the plaintiff's ability to complete the transaction or satisfy damages, and the balance of convenience therefore favored removal of the caveat.

New Zealand Case Law

LI v 110 FORMOSA (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 70

CLEAR WHITE INVESTMENTS LTD v OTIS TRUSTEE LTD [2017] NZHC 344

MIRA SAHIB COMPANY LIMITED V PL SAUNDERCOCK HC WN CIV-2012-485-1256

AKV2 LIMITED V AUCKLAND CONCRETE HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-005972

RAISER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V TREFOIL PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-5883