New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud exception

Legal area

Court

4 May 2021

TAYLOR v BRAVO [2021] NZCA 162

Citation

[2021] NZCA 162
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to extend time is granted because the 23‑day delay was not serious or unjustified in the applicant's circumstances (unrepresented, advanced age, transcript issues), there was no demonstrated prejudice to the respondent, and the proposed appeal was not so clearly hopeless (an arguable alternative trust/knowing receipt characterisation raised limitation issues) as to justify refusal; the interests of justice required extension.
5 Aug 2014

BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LTD & ORS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA51/2014 [2014] NZCA 348

Citation

(2014) 22PRNZ 322
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Brewer J erred by awarding indemnity costs for Redcliffe 2010 because he wrongly relied on subsequent related litigation and hindsight; the Redcliffe 2010 claim was not shown to have been hopeless at the relevant time or to involve flagrant misconduct sufficient to justify indemnity costs. The indemnity award was quashed and replaced with an award of costs on a 2C basis plus disbursements, and the Court certified for two counsel.
23 Jul 2013

KEREOPA & ORS V TE ROROA WHATU ORA CUSTODIAN LIMITED CA285,2012, [2013] NZCA 327 .

Citation

[2013] NZAR 1029
Court

Court of Appeal

Application for extension of time dismissed because the appellants had not pursued the appeal diligently and the substantive appeal had no real prospect of success given the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Act 2008 removes jurisdiction to relitigate those historical claims and the respondent holds indefeasible registered title under the Land Transfer Act 1952 absent proven actual fraud.
16 Jul 2013

WILLIAMS & ANOR v CAMERON & ORS [2013] NZHC 1794

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1794
Court

High Court

The recall application was dismissed because allegations of fabrication and fraud engaged the fraud exception to finality and required new, uninfected proceedings with full pleadings and evidence rather than summary recall under District Court Rule 12.15; the District Court judge correctly applied Redcliffe and there was insufficient admissible evidence beyond conjecture to justify recall.
27 Feb 2009

TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED V EASTVIEW CONSTRUCTIONS (ALBANY) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-006619

Citation

openlaw-f619591e_56a6_4645_add9_77fba6f51982.pdf
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because there was no evidence the mortgagee consented to the unregistered lease or that the mortgagee acted fraudulently; the mortgagee validly relied on executed documents and a solicitor's certificate so s119 and s62 of the Land Transfer Act protect the registered mortgagee, and the balance of convenience favors enforcement of the mortgagee's rights.
30 Aug 2006

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN & ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

Citation

openlaw-92a7ef7c_e79f_467f_be1f_6b6c77a1f958.pdf
Court

High Court

The ASB mortgage was not a security interest taken in connection with the pleaded buy-back transaction within s119 CCCF Act because the loan and mortgage secured an independent purchase loan of the trustees and ASB had no knowledge or participation in the buy-back scheme; the CCCF Act does not impliedly override indefeasibility in favour of innocent financiers absent express words; knowledge of the sixth defendant (solicitor) cannot be imputed to ASB to invoke the fraud exception; accordingly the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action against ASB and cannot be cured by amendment, so…
23 Aug 2004

BOTROS & ANOR V CLIST CA CA124/04

Citation

openlaw-64c84d91_32b5_44b2_a806_3c6628b5fe93.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave for a second appeal was declined because no tenable question of law was raised (an unregistered sketch cannot be set up against registered title) and concurrent factual findings in the lower courts established the respondent as a bona fide purchaser without knowledge, so the fraud exception did not apply, meaning the Waller v Hider test for leave was not met.

New Zealand Case Law

TAYLOR v BRAVO [2021] NZCA 162

BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LTD & ORS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA51/2014 [2014] NZCA 348

KEREOPA & ORS V TE ROROA WHATU ORA CUSTODIAN LIMITED CA285,2012, [2013] NZCA 327 .

WILLIAMS & ANOR v CAMERON & ORS [2013] NZHC 1794

TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED V EASTVIEW CONSTRUCTIONS (ALBANY) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-006619

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN & ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

BOTROS & ANOR V CLIST CA CA124/04