New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal property securities

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2021

HEARTLAND BANK LIMITED v MAHONEY [2021] NZHC 1363

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1363
Court

High Court

There was no credible or contemporaneous evidence of an agreed variation waiving default interest; contemporaneous emails and ledgers show Heartland consistently treated accounts as in arrears and charging default interest; clauses requiring written signed variations and certificates of amounts due supported Heartland's position; accordingly the defendants' variation, estoppel, Fair Trading Act and CCCFA defences were not reasonably arguable and summary judgment was appropriate for the recalculated loan balances with specified interest and costs directions.
26 Jul 2019

RED JACK RESOURCES LTD v SMITH DIESEL SERVICES LTD [2019] NZHC 1776 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1776
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand in part: applicant failed to establish reasonably arguable counterclaims in respect of most paid invoices (including Martin and Category Two invoices) and the alleged sale of the MT41 truck due to lack of evidence, payment/ratification or inconsistency with contemporaneous conduct, but did establish narrowly arguable counterclaims for pump costs and for damage/removal claims (including engine control unit removal) totalling $185,057.75. Consequently $427,178.59 remained owing and the applicant was ordered to pay that sum within 10 working days; in defa…
6 May 2014

ADAMS AND BUCHANAN (AS LIQUIDATORS OF STARPLUS HOMES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)) v SUN [2014] NZHC 912

Citation

[2014] NZHC 912
Court

High Court

Standard terms and memoranda of Magsons, Hamilton Hardware, United Timber and RD 1 created equitable mortgages that attached to present and after-acquired land; those equitable charges are valid and rank in time according to when they arose (Hamilton Hardware, RD 1, Magsons, United Timber), the registered second mortgage of Sun is valid but marshalling is available and should be applied because the order of sales by the senior mortgagee (ASAP) produced an arbitrary windfall to Sun; the Court directed proportional apportionment and reserved costs and precise quantification to allow submissions…
6 Dec 2013

NUVITA MANUFACTURING & DEVELOPMENT LTD v DESIGN & MANAGEMENTS SERVICE LTD [2013] NZHC 3256

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3256
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because Nuvita established an arguable genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the debt was extinguished by agreement and transfer of equipment, supported by contemporaneous documents; signature by a director did not invalidate the demand; costs awarded to Nuvita (2B scale plus 50% uplift) and application for personal costs against the director dismissed.
4 Sept 2013

SPINNAKER CAPITAL LIMITED v MOSS [2013] NZHC 2295

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2295
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to raise a real question to be tried on alleged misrepresentation, misleading conduct, lack of independent legal advice and subsequent dealings with the Strand property because the evidence showed the defendant had knowledge of the land issues, had been advised to obtain independent advice and the guarantee expressly preserved lender rights; however a genuine dispute remained as to the proper interest payable after 18 April 2012, the effect of a profit‑sharing arrangement and a small payment discrepancy, so summary judgment was entered only for the undisputed principal of…
22 Aug 2012

REYNOLDS V JAMES HC AK CIV-2011-404-2869

Citation

openlaw-e84df4e8_ee5b_4477_8b75_33d2ab0ffb02.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the general security agreement was voidable under s 293 insofar as it secured past debts and was also voidable under s 292 insofar as it would give Mr James priority over other claimants for post-22 May 2009 claims. The June 2009 payments of $60,904 were voidable under s 292, but the liquidator's claim for recovery of that sum was dismissed because Mr James had, after liquidation and with the liquidators' acquiescence, paid higher-priority liquidation expenses (liquidators' remuneration and litigation costs) totalling more than the preferential payments, thereby removing the pr…
15 Jul 2011

GEDDES V JOHNSON HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000747

Citation

openlaw-2ed6ee83_a098_40c4_8515_e0748c75a6d3.pdf
Court

High Court

No de facto relationship was found; plaintiff contributed substantially more to the purchase and servicing of encumbering debts secured over the co-owned house, creating a financial imbalance which justified sale of the property under Property Law Act 2007 s339 and an award of compensation under s343; where the house proceeds are insufficient the vessel Acrux is held on constructive trust for the plaintiff to the extent necessary to reimburse her; plaintiff entitled to occupation rental and return of chattels.
1 Oct 2009

VIACOM GLOBAL (NETHERLANDS) B.V. V SCENE 1 ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR CA CA600/2009

Citation

openlaw-9581286a_9958_47a8_9b6e_186cb86b11a2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The stay was refused because there was no serious question to be tried on the copyright point in the interim injunction context; ASB Bank held a perfected registered security giving priority over the unregistered licence; the balance of convenience favoured the receivers who must realise the secured stock promptly for creditors, and the respondents' undertaking to hold sale proceeds pending appeal mitigated appellant's prejudice.
20 Sept 2006

MELTZER & MASON V FASTLANE AUTO LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3648 20 SEPTEMBER 200

Citation

HC AK CIV 2005-404-3648
Court

High Court

Because Fastlane failed to apply within the s294 period the transfer was set aside by operation of the statute and the liquidators were obliged to seek recovery; however the Court must exercise its s296(3) discretion and found it inequitable to order repayment given the liquidators would not have pursued the notice had they known the true facts, so no recovery was ordered but costs were awarded against Fastlane for failing to provide timely, adequate evidence or to apply to protect its position.