14 May 2020
On the serious question threshold the Court held APL raised a serious question that it is not bound by the loan because the change recorded at the Registrar was not a notice provided by the company's board under s159 and the fraudulent filing was not an act of a person of the kind covered by s18(2); accordingly interim injunctive relief restraining the mortgagee was justified pending trial.
27 Mar 2013
The Court declined to remove Emily Karaka and Deborah Pace as trustees; it found the Trust was irregularly operated during the exclusion period but would not declare the AIP void in proceedings to which the Crown was not a party; the Deed of Mandate does not prevent immediate removal of negotiators by trustee resolution (subject to iwi appeal), and the majority trustees, although having acted improperly in several respects, should not be removed immediately because that would paralyse the Trust. Instead the Court ordered a clean‑sweep trustee election by 31 July 2013 with all trustees removed…
23 Mar 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were predominately factual matters on which concurrent findings had been reached in the District Court and High Court, did not raise questions of law or public importance sufficient to satisfy the Waller v Hider test, and therefore were not appropriate for a second appeal; consequentially the application for stay was dismissed and costs were awarded to respondents.
4 Oct 2011
The Court held ANZ was not on notice of any defect in Ms Norman's authority under s 18, the delayed written consent amounted at most to a defect and s 158 validates her acts as director for the purposes of binding AKE to the guarantee, therefore there was no substantial dispute to set aside the statutory demand; AKE was insolvent and immediate liquidation was ordered with a liquidator appointed.
3 Mar 2010
Summary judgment granted because the defendant had no reasonably arguable defence: he failed to establish non est factum or undue influence; the guarantee's explicit terms preserved the lender's rights against the guarantor despite compromises with co-guarantors; and the insolvents' creditors' proposals did not bind the plaintiff under s334 because the proposals related to the insolvents' debts and not the guarantor's separate liability.
8 Feb 2010
Court held consideration was sufficient because Dorchester's advance to TWVHL conferred a real benefit in the commercial context; trustees identified as borrowers bound the trust where a majority of trustees validly authorised the contract under s227 so those trustees were personally liable; two Opepe trustees (Biel and Rameka) had arguable s227(6) written dissent defences so summary judgment against them was declined; other trusts where majority did not sign could not be bound and summary judgment was dismissed as to those trustees; unconscionability, non est factum and Fair Trading Act defe…