New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order for possession

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2022

STALIX PROPERTY LTD v WU [2022] NZHC 3163

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3163
Court

High Court

The Judge concluded plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to effect personal service, Mr Wu deliberately obstructed service, and the proposed substituted service (handing or affixing documents at the Blarney Place address and emailing the service address of the first and third defendants) is likely to bring the Order to the second and fourth defendants' notice; accordingly personal service was dispensed with and substituted service ordered, with the Order to be treated as served on completion of those steps. The indemnity costs claim against Mr Wu was reserved pending opportunity to be heard.
19 Sept 2022

WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2398

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2398
Court

High Court

Both the possession opposition and Mr Wu's separate proceeding to overturn the Registrar sale were hopeless and an abuse of process; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate under r 14.6(4)(a). The court awarded indemnity costs and recoverable disbursements, allowed GST inclusive recovery because the claimants were not GST registered, but reduced the claimed office expense to a reasonable fixed amount ($115) after requiring particulars.
12 Aug 2022

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED v WU [2022] NZHC 2006

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2006
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because the possession order was the inevitable consequence of prior final judgments and a court-ordered sale; the proposed appeal amounted to a collateral attack lacking merit and did not raise new substantive points; alleged procedural or intituling irregularities do not invalidate the prior judgments under the High Court Rules, and purchasers who bought in good faith from the Registrar obtain title not impeached by those issues.
24 Aug 2018

WOOLF v KAYE [2018] NZHC 2191

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2191
Court

High Court

On the evidence the parents' settlement contribution was $3,500 (mortgage securities) not $14,000 and the presumption of advancement was not rebutted; deceased parents' late and unreliable statements were inadmissible or of little weight; claimant's monetary and non-monetary contributions, while real, were outweighed by the substantial value of her rent-free occupation; therefore neither a resulting trust nor an expectation-based constructive trust in her favour was established. Defendant entitled to mesne profits, possession and discharge of caveat.
7 Feb 2018

HSIEH v SPENCER LAWES [2018] NZHC 60

Citation

[2018] NZHC 60
Court

High Court

The notice of termination was valid: it was served, an agreed extension did not undermine termination, and the express holding-over clause meant s210 did not apply; accordingly the court, under s251, ordered possession and cancelled the lease.
10 Dec 2015

WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL v SINGH [2015] NZHC 3147

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3147
Court

High Court

Relief from cancellation of the lease is granted as an indulgence subject to detailed conditions requiring completion of specified physical works within 60 working days of obtaining any required building consent, preparation and expert approval of risk management and water quality plans conforming to NZS 5826:2010, restriction on reopening the pools until those conditions (and Pool Safe application) are met, and a costs award in favour of the lessor reduced by 25% because the lessor's conduct contributed to the need for litigation; where experts cannot agree the parties may seek court assista…
19 Aug 2013

MINTO v PARKINSON [2013] NZHC 2106

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2106
Court

High Court

The rent-to-buy agreement was unenforceable against the registered proprietor because Minto did not sign it, there was no ostensible authority for Ms Way to bind him, no representation or affirmation by Minto that could found an estoppel, and the respondent did not reasonably rely on any representation by Minto; therefore the respondent holds no legal or equitable right to occupy enforceable against the proprietor.
7 May 2013

LDC FINANCE LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V JENKINS AND SMITH HC NEL CIV-2009-442-000281

Citation

openlaw-da0fe633_554f_4b95_866a_655af6a2d2b4.pdf
Court

High Court

Reduce the claimed costs by $2,985.00 because item 24 was claimed twice (only one award allowable under Schedule 3); do not reduce costs for partial success because the plaintiff had no tangible success at the summary judgment stage due to failure to address a priority mortgage issue, therefore award costs on the 2B basis less the duplicate item.
6 Nov 2012

JOAN MARY CATHERINE SANTOS V ALFRED SANTOS HC AK CIV-2011-404-1469

Citation

openlaw-360ca930_105a_4262_879f_b372a27d92cf.pdf
Court

High Court

The court conducted a reasonableness review of the solicitors' invoices, allowed most disbursements and investigator and estate solicitor costs, reduced certain solicitor time entries (including a 20% reduction of post-judgment solicitor attendances) and fixed solicitor/client costs at $21,390 plus disbursements of $5,903.17, approved estate solicitor costs of $4,312.50 and investigator costs of $8,946.25; rates and water were held recoverable as incidents of occupation.
16 Nov 2011

RIPOSARE LIMITED V HILTON HC WHA CIV-2011-488-360

Citation

openlaw-c7d55836_4545_4950_ba66_e685ed2ea720.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the defendant, not the Mangawhati Maori Committee, was the tenant; the plaintiff validly served a s 246 notice and the defendant was in breach by failing to execute the required deed and by operating obstructive commercial stalls in the shared accessway; those breaches were unremedied within the specified period and justified cancellation of the agreement and an order for possession. Defects in the s 245 notice were noted but held not to be fatal to the s 246-based relief granted.