New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partnership assets

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2015

GARDNER v GARDNER [2015] NZHC 2018

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2018
Court

High Court

Summary judgment for dissolution was dismissed because the defendant has an arguable equitable interest (estoppel/constructive trust) in the plaintiff's partnership share sufficient to preclude unilateral dissolution; however, the resource consent CRC144206, paid for with partnership funds and recorded in partnership accounts, is a partnership asset and the defendant holds it on trust for the partnership, so a declaration to that effect was granted.
30 Jul 2015

GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS LIMITED v JET TRUSTEES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1773

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1773
Court

High Court

The Court found on the material before it that the defendant has an arguable equitable interest in the plaintiff's share of the partnership sufficient to preclude unilateral dissolution; however, the resource consent CRC144206 was indisputably paid for with partnership funds and recorded in partnership accounts and is therefore a partnership asset held on trust by the defendant for the partnership, so the declaration as to the consent was granted while summary judgment on dissolution was dismissed.
24 Apr 2012

PHILIP DEAN THOMAS V NORMAN DEAN THOMAS HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002514

Citation

openlaw-012f0ad8_c7ef_441f_affa_681575cc6803.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff established an arguable case that the defendant holds his share of the partnership land on constructive trust or equitable estoppel grounds sufficient to sustain the caveat pending resolution at trial; the court refused to require an undertaking to pay damages because the risk of loss was speculative and the plaintiff was financially able to meet any award; the caveat is therefore sustained subject to specified releases and case management directions.
20 Dec 2010

PARK V STIRLING AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2009-488-57

Citation

openlaw-3e9b4813_74fb_4060_bb76_e5a6cfaf6146.pdf
Court

High Court

The permit was a partnership asset applied for and paid for by the partnership before Brian's death; Keane J's judgment ordered an accounting for the deceased partner's full share of partnership assets (including the permit) and, once satisfied, transferred the deceased partner's interest to the surviving partner (and thus his estate). Res judicata principles (Henderson v Henderson) and s92(2)(a) of the Crown Minerals Act support that outcome, so the first and second defendants hold no interest and the plaintiff as executor is the owner.
19 May 2009

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007

Citation

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that a partner's beneficial interest in partnership assets can be relationship property and that where relationship property was applied to develop vineyards and where the non‑owning spouse's actions (including domestic work and paid employment) indirectly enabled or funded development, the whole of the increase in value falls to be treated as relationship property under s 9A; where increases arise under s 9A(2) parties' shares are determined by their respective contributions to the increase, and on the facts the Court of Appeal's allocations and deductions were justified; acco…

New Zealand Case Law

GARDNER v GARDNER [2015] NZHC 2018

GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS LIMITED v JET TRUSTEES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1773

PHILIP DEAN THOMAS V NORMAN DEAN THOMAS HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002514

PARK V STIRLING AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2009-488-57

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007