New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupation rights

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2022

K v K [2022] NZHC 1301

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1301
Court

High Court

The appellant failed to establish any representation or assurance by the respondent capable of founding an estoppel, and failed to show reasonable reliance or detriment; the 2014 settlement order was plain on its face, was not varied by subsequent emails or conduct, and accordingly the Family Court lawfully made the sale order; leave to appeal the 2014 consent judgment was declined because of lack of merit and the importance of finality.
5 Jun 2020

LAW v LAW [2020] NZHC 1243

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1243
Court

High Court

The court held the settlor's memorandum, read as a whole, showed the $500 weekly payment to the survivor was intended to ensure her financial security and was not limited to being paid only from trust income; the trustees had therefore acted on an incorrect interpretation and the court gave directions ordering sale of the existing property and purchase of a Masonic Trust Village property to be held in the adult children's names with a protected life occupation right for the first respondent, a $20,000 lump sum to her, adult children to meet outgoings, and equal distribution of remaining trust…
10 Dec 2009

MORGAN V MORGAN HC WN CIV-2008-485-2494

Citation

openlaw-ef2ea4a3_5b20_48ca_b894_89486044f6a5.pdf
Court

High Court

Although Mrs Williams' sale proceeds were applied to substantial renovations to the Kelburn property and thus constituted a contribution more than minor, the court found no common intention at the relevant time that Mrs Williams would retain a beneficial interest beyond life occupation; factors including the 1984 document, absence of contemporaneous protective steps, the family arrangement context and lack of contemporaneous evidence of an expectation to retain a proprietary interest meant a constructive trust was not established and the plaintiff's claim failed.
4 Jul 2006

THE RANGITOTO ISLAND BACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED AND ANOR V THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-485-2378

Citation

openlaw-2761c513_e819_4196_b88e_5b9147acc4bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to RIBCA because the proceedings were both complex and significant, requiring counsel of special skill and experience (category 3C under r48); the respondents' arguments of special privilege and disentitling conduct were rejected; accordingly RIBCA was awarded $29,025 and disbursements of $2,941.34 totalling $31,966.34.

New Zealand Case Law

K v K [2022] NZHC 1301

LAW v LAW [2020] NZHC 1243

MORGAN V MORGAN HC WN CIV-2008-485-2494

THE RANGITOTO ISLAND BACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED AND ANOR V THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-485-2378