New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of equitable interests

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2022

BODY CORPORATE 172108 v MANCHESTER SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 2982

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2982
Court

High Court

The defendants' affidavit of documents failed to comply with rr 8.7, 8.15, 8.16 and Schedule 9; claims of privilege and confidentiality (other than solicitor–client correspondence) were not adequately particularised and were set aside; because the pleadings raised an arguable claim that the Body Corporate's equitable interest arose before Flat Bush's, and priority depends on the whole conduct of the parties, broad discovery of primary documents relevant to lending, payments, assignments and priority agreements was necessary and ordered in specified categories.
15 Feb 2022

BODY CORPORATE 172108 v MANCHESTER SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQ) & ORS [2022] NZHC 184

Citation

[2022] NZHC 184
Court

High Court

The presumption in r 15.23 applies and no circumstances were shown to displace it; the third defendant's conduct in attempting to re-litigate issues already determined justified awarding costs to the plaintiff on a 2B basis in the sum claimed, with disbursements, totaling $8,714.00.
30 Aug 2021

POWELL v K 2 INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2253

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2253
Court

High Court

K2 New Zealand's pleaded defence and counterclaim were struck out because Kemeny lacked authority to litigate for K2 New Zealand; however the loan agreement was valid and enforceable against K2 New Zealand by virtue of the indoor management rule (s18 Companies Act) because Powell dealt with the sole director. Powell made the agreed advance. The Court reopened the credit contract under the CCCFA limited to a delay adjustment because Powell's extended delay in enforcing his rights (post-caveat judgment) rendered continued accrual of the default penalty oppressive. K2 New Zealand held a 50% equi…
4 Jun 2021

ANGURALA & Anor v FERNANDES [2021] NZHC 1309

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1309
Court

High Court

Although the respondent had a reasonably arguable equitable interest, the Court exercised its residual discretion to remove the caveat because the earlier purchaser (Mr Singh) held priority, there was no written avoidance or disentitling conduct by him or the vendors, and there was no practical advantage in maintaining the caveat; removal was ordered subject to $80,000 being held on interest-bearing deposit and removal limited to enabling registration of the transfer to Mr Singh.
20 Dec 2013

BETHELL v BETHELL [2013] NZHC 3492

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3492
Court

High Court

The deed granted Chrissie the right to call for up to ten acres comprising the camping ground and the clay patch; she exercised that right by oral calls in 1991 acquiring an equitable interest identifiable by extrinsic evidence; Ross breached his obligation to take reasonable steps to obtain council consent and to effect transfer after consent; damages were inadequate and laches/hardship did not bar relief; specific performance ordered requiring transfer of Lot 1 (4.047 hectares) as per the May 2007 council approval; Maria's 2004 life interest exists but is subordinate to Chrissie's earlier e…
21 Oct 2013

FANSHAWE 136 LTD v FANSHAWE CAPITAL LTD [2013] NZHC 2742

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2742
Court

High Court

On the interlocutory material the plaintiffs' claim against Capital was unlikely to succeed while the claim against Wilson had some merit but was not so strong as to preclude a security for costs order; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r5.45 to order security for costs (NZD 30,000 in favour of Capital and NZD 20,000 in favour of Wilson), refused to determine quantum of damages at this stage and ordered damages to be determined only if relevant after liability, with specified deadlines and consequences for non-payment (stay and vacatur of fixture).
18 Nov 2009

PERKINS V PUREA AND ANOR CA CA365/2008

Citation

openlaw-3a19dd33_fabd_42bb_838b_be0aed2de846.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that a 1988 agreement existed creating an equitable interest in favour of Mrs Tangi-Tuake (characterised as an institutional constructive trust), that s 182 did not defeat that prior equitable interest as the Perkins only held an equitable interest pre-registration, that on balance of competing equities the Tangi-Tuake interest prevailed, and accordingly specific performance (transfer of legal title to Mrs Tangi-Tuake) was ordered while the Perkins were confined to equitable damages (award $88,000) and were not entitled to the contractual clause 3.10(2) sum.
23 Jul 2008

ZIKI INVESTMENTS (PROPERTIES) LIMITED V MCDONALD HC AK CIV 2008-404-0038

Citation

openlaw-cac9dc09_9393_491f_a528_21f0bab6e3e5.pdf
Court

High Court

A tenancy for life is a fixed-term tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act; where a purchaser had notice or knowledge (including wilful blindness) of an existing life tenancy that equity binds the purchaser under s58(1)(e) despite indefeasibility in the Land Transfer Act; the Tribunal's remedial powers under the Act can therefore be invoked and s85(2) does not permit disregarding general legal principles.