New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud allegations

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2023

ADCOCK v BRANCOTT [2023] NZHC 3136

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3136
Court

High Court

The defendant has not established any arguable defence: registration under s 51 LTA vested indefeasible title in the plaintiff subject only to specific statutory exceptions which the defendant has not particularised; allegations of fraud are general and unsupported; possessory/allodial title arguments are legally untenable; purchaser is protected under s 184 PLA — summary judgment for possession is warranted.
8 Aug 2023

LIANG v HAN [2023] NZHC 2070

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2070
Court

High Court

Liang failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable beneficial estate or interest in the Vaughans Road property; a personal claim for damages (loss of chance) does not create a proprietary interest in the defendant's land, and there is no evidence funds from the alleged fraud were traced to the property. The caveat cannot be maintained and the application to sustain it is dismissed.
3 Mar 2020

HOLLYMAN v HOLLYMAN [2020] NZHC 362

Citation

[2020] NZHC 362
Court

High Court

The caveat as lodged referred only to rights under the 1992 Deed which were merged and superseded by the 16 December 2003 consent judgment; accordingly the 2002 caveat could not be sustained and was dismissed, but the applicant was granted leave under s146 LTA 2017 to lodge a replacement caveat to protect the rights as defined in the consent judgment; allegations of fraud against the registered proprietor were not pleaded with sufficient particularity and were not proved.
24 Aug 2018

HULJICH v HULJICH & ORS [2018] NZHC 2205

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2205
Court

High Court

Relief from the unless orders is granted only as a short, final indulgence because the plaintiff's non-compliance was not found to be deliberate given medical evidence of age-related cognitive and anxiety impairment and the recent engagement of experienced counsel; therefore the plaintiff is permitted to file compliant particulars and limited additional evidence by 31 August 2018, subject to strict consequences (strike out) for non-compliance; the sixth cause of action for equitable damages is struck out because further discovery will not be permitted and particulars cannot be provided.
17 Apr 2018

CONROY REMOVALS LTD v SAMEER [2018] NZHC 698

Citation

[2018] NZHC 698
Court

High Court

The debtor did not establish a cross-claim that she could not have used in the Disputes Tribunal or on appeal and the alleged cross-claims are not genuine or triable with a reasonable probability of success; accordingly s 17(7) does not operate to set aside the bankruptcy notice and the application is dismissed.
27 Jul 2017

YARROW v FINNIGAN [2017] NZHC 1755

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1755
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out because the plaintiff's persistent, serial and inexcusable non-compliance with timetabling orders and lengthy post-issue delay established an abuse of process and also satisfied the three-part test for want of prosecution (inordinate delay, inexcusable delay, and serious prejudice to the defendant); the Court therefore exercised its strike-out jurisdiction and awarded costs with security for costs to be disbursed accordingly.
30 May 2017

SKELTON v HOWCROFT [2017] NZHC 1149

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1149
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because the intending plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt with a history of unpaid costs and the proposed claims, arising from substantially the same facts as prior struck-out proceedings and subject to settlement and limitation defences, have little or no realistic prospect of success; accordingly it was just to protect the intended defendants by ordering security and staying the proceeding until paid.
13 Oct 2015

HELILOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 2503

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2503
Court

High Court

Summary judgment for the defendant: plaintiffs' deceit and negligent misstatement claims fail because they cannot show material reliance or causation—the alterations to the Lewis letter either authorised and evident ("viability"->"safety") or not material ("Mk52"->"Mk2" given the Mk2/Mk52 of the 1960s were materially the same); the misfeasance claim either lacks necessary culpable mental element or is time-barred because plaintiffs knew (or ought to have known) the grounds for challenge by March 2007 and certainly by August 2006–2007; plaintiffs' inability to pursue judicial review resulted f…
12 Aug 2014

962149 LIMITED & ANOR v HANSEN & ORS [2014] NZHC 1884

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1884
Court

High Court

Leave to permit a non-lawyer director to represent the company was refused because the Mannix rule applies; the case is complex with extensive and potentially damaging fraud allegations, the pleadings are prolix and confused, the applicant lacked requisite legal knowledge, and a company's lack of funds is not a sufficient exceptional circumstance to permit lay representation.
28 Jul 2014

WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED v O'HAGAN [2014] NZHC 1763

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1763
Court

High Court

The Court exercised s38(2) jurisdiction to condition the existing halt order on payment of the undisputed High Court costs of $4,488 within 28 days; failure to pay permits the Court to review the halt order on application by the judgment creditor.