New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ownership of chattels

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2022

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 465

Citation

[2022] NZHC 465
Court

High Court

The court found a serious question to be tried as to ownership and possible breach of clause 1.32(b) of the Consent Orders and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief; accordingly the interim order was varied to require the respondent to return specified fixtures, fittings and chattels removed between 7 and 13 March 2022 by a deadline, subject to limited exceptions and reserved applications, and to prohibit personal return to the property.
22 Jun 2021

D & E Buses Limited v Gupta & Ors [2021] NZHC 1498

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1498
Court

High Court

Application for further and better discovery requiring defendants to obtain supplier invoices dismissed: although invoices are relevant and likely existed, the delay, the defendants' prior failures to preserve and disclose, the risk of prejudicing the fixed trial timetable, the disproportionate burden of reconstruction and uncertain availability of supplier records led the Court to refuse the order while directing immediate production of the Trust's signed annual accounts and reserving costs to be fixed on application.
6 Nov 2017

DILWORTH TRUST BOARD v N M BRIGHT [2017] NZHC 2282

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2282
Court

High Court

The statutory requirements of s13 were met, the debtor failed to provide reliable evidence that he could pay the debt or that he owned assets of sufficient value to avoid adjudication, ownership disputes over the plant and chattels are unresolved and for other proceedings/parties to determine, and there were no compelling or equitable reasons to refuse adjudication; accordingly an order for adjudication was made.
12 Oct 2016

VALLANCE & TEMPLETON as trustees of the Estate of ARNOLD RAYMOND VALLANCE v VALLANCE [2016] NZHC 2435

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2435
Court

High Court

Because the trustees were justified in bringing the proceedings and were overall substantially successful, and the defendant's only significant success related to chattels while thereafter adopting an unreasonable position on occupation rent, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis but discounted the award by 15% to reflect the defendant's partial success on chattels.
15 Aug 2016

QUEENSTOWN CENTRAL LTD v MARCH CONSTRUCTION LTD [2016] NZHC 1884

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1884
Court

High Court

The fill remained a chattel (not part of the land) because an informed objective assessment including the resource consent and purpose of placement showed the land served as storage for the fill; March acquired ownership under the Fill Ownership Agreement and publicly asserted and registered that interest; March is therefore liable in trespass to QCL for keeping the fill after reasonable notice revoking any licence and must remove it; the November 2011 transfer to Collins Road Developments Ltd was a device to avoid liability and does not relieve March; mesne profits are payable from expiry of…
12 Mar 2014

KEMENY v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2014] NZHC 443

Citation

[2014] NZHC 443
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the 12 August and 3 November 2008 letters effected a pledge or assignment of the chattels; contemporaneous documentary evidence and adviser correspondence are inconsistent with the claimed security, originals were not produced and the applicant's evidence contained material inconsistencies, therefore the chattels remain part of the bankrupt estate and the payment is an unsecured advance.
16 Jul 2013

RONALD KEVIN WILLIAMS v SUSAN DAPHNE GREEN [2013] NZHC 1780

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1780
Court

High Court

Both proceedings were struck out because they constituted an abuse of process: the claims were largely relitigation of earlier matters, in part time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950, lacked independent evidence of the alleged loss of chattels and were supported by a falsified newspaper advertisement, rendering the proceedings without a genuine cause of action.
14 Mar 2012

CRAIG BUSCH V ZION WILDLIFE GARDENS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) HC WHA CIV-2011-488-232

Citation

openlaw-7bb02d54_ca4b_4024_bfdd_a47c40d0a728.pdf
Court

High Court

Court granted limited further and better discovery directed at specified categories (Metro Law files, corporate trustee files, bank accounts, accountants' records and related documents) with specified deadlines, but refused to grant joinder or allow third defendant to stand in the shoes of Country Developments and refused to join Wildlife Pictures; costs lie where they fall; trial and pre-trial directions set.
27 Apr 2010

SARGISON AND ANOR V ANTHEM WINE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-001876

Citation

openlaw-905a7e40_978c_4e12_a1cc_4f16eb6e56e3.pdf
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the court found Anthem Holdings had assumed the role of winemaker, had possession and control of the 2006–2008 vintages and that no valid sale from Gibbston Downs Wines to Anthem Wine Company occurred; accordingly the receivers hold proprietary rights to those vintages and the secured interest had attached, entitling them to possession and proceeds.
2 Dec 2009

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V HEENAN HC INV CIV 2002-425-000015

Citation

openlaw-cffce1c2_b1f4_440e_9a76_05645aa162ad.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court initially ruled that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the defendant from asserting the 1960 trust ownership defence and limited admissible evidence to proof that the vehicles were the defendant's personal property at the bankruptcy date; however, after reading Heath J's contrary findings the judge recalled his oral judgment and did not maintain the prior finding of issue estoppel, recognizing the need to recall an unsigned judgment where a relevant authoritative decision was not previously brought to the Court's attention.