New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nomination of purchaser

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2021

CASSINY LTD v HOUNSLOW HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 3116

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3116
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was declined because the caveats had already lapsed and been removed (so there was nothing to stay), CCL failed to establish a clear caveatable interest by nomination (no executed deed of nomination evidenced and only one ASP purchaser existed), and the balance of convenience favored Hounslow which would be injuriously affected by a caveat fettering its ability to deal with the property.
10 May 2017

TRAVERS PROJECT LIMITED v PRIME PROPERTY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 940

Citation

[2017] NZHC 940
Court

High Court

The Deed of nomination was effective and created an equitable interest in Prime which, on the evidence, Prime lawfully holds; Travers failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that the Deed was conditional on a completed joint venture, that fiduciary breach would lead equity to restore Travers' purchaser interest, or that repudiation re-vested the property in Travers; accordingly Prime's caveat is arguable and Travers' caveat is unsupportable and was ordered removed.
23 Sept 2016

WATER VIEW PROPERTY LIMITED v GARDNER [2016] NZHC 2247

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 440
Court

High Court

The defendants have an arguable defence that the purchaser misrepresented his intention at the time of contracting (to pursue a materially different, more intensive subdivision) and that the truth of that representation was essential under s7(4)(a) CRA; because this raises serious issues of honesty and fact requiring trial, summary judgment for specific performance is dismissed.
22 Sept 2015

G N BROWN v KN BUILDING LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2290

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2290
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable caveatable interest at the time of lodgement because there was no credible evidence he was the nominated purchaser or that an implied trust arose from the renovation works; the caveat appeared lodged to secure payment and, on the evidence, the Court would exercise its discretion to dismiss the application and remove the caveat.
17 Sept 2015

JIN v KNOX PROPERTY INVESTMENT LTD [2015] NZHC 2296

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2296
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable equitable interest in the property: the $50,000 was paid for W&L and at most gives rise to a creditor or accounting claim against W&L; the change to a different corporate purchaser in which the applicant had no part and the inability to attribute Lin Luo's knowledge to the respondent meant no proprietary interest in the respondent's registered title; therefore the caveat could not be sustained.
17 Dec 2014

Marr v Parkin [2014] NZHC 3269

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3269
Court

High Court

The court held for the defendant. It found an agency/fiduciary relationship initially existed but was limited to bidding and settling using Marr's funds and effectively terminated (or permitted change of position) when it became clear Marr could not secure finance; nomination of Parkin was contemplated and not a breach of fiduciary duty; the 2 August 2013 agreement relied on by plaintiffs was not genuine; Parkin did not have the requisite knowledge to make retention unconscionable so knowing receipt failed; no consumer credit contract or security interest existed between Marr and Parkin so CC…
24 Sept 2013

WYATT FAMILY TRUST HOLDINGS LIMITED v WRIGHT [2013] NZHC 2488

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2488
Court

High Court

All three causes of action were correctly struck out: (1) the on-call/penalty interest claim was not properly pleaded and, in any event, was not enforceable against Wright once he validly nominated the Broughtons; (2) the alleged implied term was inconsistent with the contract and leading authority and could not be implied; (3) the attempt to relitigate issues already decided by the High Court and Court of Appeal amounted to a collateral attack and abuse of process. Costs awards including indemnity costs to Wright and scale 2B costs for the Broughtons payable by Wyatt were justified.
31 May 2013

MARTIN AND FARRELL v COWAN AND COWAN [2013] NZHC 1274

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1274
Court

High Court

The defendants did not establish on the affidavits and material before the Court that none of the plaintiffs' causes of action could succeed; because disputed material facts exist about who held enforceable rights and who actually suffered loss, the high threshold for granting defendant summary judgment was not met and summary judgment must be declined.