17 Nov 2014
PAUL v PAUL CA621/2013 AND CA25/2014 [2014] NZCA 549
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 549
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The Court allowed the appeal in relation to the first caveat because the appellant's affidavit evidence of a binding arrangement capable of being enforced on the vendor's death together with substantial deposit payments created a reasonably arguable case; the Associate Judge erred by conducting an impermissible trial‑like evaluation of competing evidence rather than determining whether the caveator had shown a reasonably arguable proprietary interest. The second caveat was dismissed because its asserted factual basis lacked a plausible narrative and was unnecessary while the first appeal was…