New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgage possession

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2021

WAIMAURI LTD v POWELL JUNIOR LTD [2021] NZHC 1760

Citation

WAIMAURI LTD v POWELL JUNIOR LTD [2021] NZHC 1760
Court

High Court

Leave to admit the further affidavits was granted because, on balance, PJL provided a sufficient explanation for delay, the GHL affidavits were sufficiently relevant to issues raised in PJL's opposition (including potential third‑party obligations and repayment arrangements that bear on quantum and suitability for summary judgment), and any unfairness to Waimauri could be remedied by permitting a reply, further submissions and case management steps; accordingly the affidavits are to be admitted and the plaintiff given an opportunity to respond, with costs reserved.
26 Jun 2013

WROXTON FINANCE LTD v CANTERBURY TRUSTEES (2007) LTD [2013] NZHC 1560

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1560
Court

High Court

Defendant's pleaded defences of duress and unconscionable bargain were not tenable on the evidence: no improper pressure or overborne will, no qualifying disability or disadvantage, and plaintiffs voluntarily reduced rates and gave concessions; plaintiffs therefore entitled to summary judgment for possession under s137 Property Law Act 2007; judgment entered for plaintiffs but stayed until 12 noon on 24 July 2013 to allow defendant limited time to vacate; costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
5 Mar 2013

NORFOLK NOMINEES LIMITED V KING HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-002082

Citation

openlaw-26e0a910_9c10_43a0_84a6_504c2896304a.pdf
Court

High Court

Corrective initial disclosure after the statutory five working day period is permissible; s 99 suspends enforcement only until compliant disclosure is made rather than permanently; the 17 July 2012 disclosure met Schedule 1 requirements (specified effective date and accounted for credit), there was no arguable defence of oppression or tenable claim for statutory damages affecting possession, and accordingly summary judgment for possession was granted.
4 Aug 2010

F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED V MILLS AND ANOR HC NAP CIV 2010-441-258

Citation

openlaw-76e65251_0169_43ed_a6bf_48eb15d02a91.pdf
Court

High Court

There was no binding agreement or enforceable promise (including promissory estoppel) preventing FM Custodians from enforcing its loan and mortgage rights; the correspondence evidenced negotiation and delay rather than a legally binding arrangement and thus no arguable defence existed, so summary judgment and possession were properly granted alongside interest and costs.

New Zealand Case Law

WAIMAURI LTD v POWELL JUNIOR LTD [2021] NZHC 1760

WROXTON FINANCE LTD v CANTERBURY TRUSTEES (2007) LTD [2013] NZHC 1560

NORFOLK NOMINEES LIMITED V KING HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-002082

F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED V MILLS AND ANOR HC NAP CIV 2010-441-258