2 Aug 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant trustees have arguable and respectable defences (including lack of authority, absence of notice, and contested ratification by the solicitor/director) raising mixed questions of fact and law that must be resolved at trial, and the applicant did not identify an error of sufficient public or legal importance to justify appeal under s56(3).
26 Apr 2023
Summary judgment refused because there were reasonably arguable defences: the agreement was executed by only one of two registered trustees with the co-trustee unaware for an extended period, and there was no clear evidence of actual authority or subsequent ratification by the non-acting trustee to bind the trust, creating a real issue for trial.
16 Mar 2023
The Court refused all three interlocutory applications: the second cause of action was not struck out because it was not clearly untenable and raised reasonably arguable issues (including disputed interpretation of the Trust Deeds and the relevance of Hayward and Beddoe); the proceeding was not dismissed for want of prosecution because pre‑issue delay and post‑issue delays were not shown to be inordinate, inexcusable and causative of serious prejudice and justice could still be done; and security for costs was refused because the Trustee did not establish a credible inference that the plainti…
1 Jul 2021
Constable lacked authority to execute the investor agreement because his appointment was defective and procured without the lawful director's consent; s158 does not protect the appointment where there was no proper power and good faith is absent; plaintiffs have a good arguable case for proprietary remedies (constructive trust and money paid under mistake) and relief under s43 FTA; there is an identifiable fund ($260,000) and a real risk of dissipation, therefore freezing and preservation orders are justified.
18 Dec 2019
The Court declared the appointment valid because the shares that had vested in the Crown were effectively ratified by the Crown's written confirmation of no objection, combined with support from NOA's directors and absence of opposition; accordingly the s 284 declaration was appropriate to validate the resolution.
26 Jul 2019
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…
17 May 2019
The Court found the April 2013 document was intended to be binding between Jireh and Ms Borisova; evidence supports that material changes were agreed and acted upon in early May 2013 and that Daboko ratified the pre-incorporation agreement by conduct (payments and invoices) after incorporation; the plaintiffs (GJC/RFG) are entitled to judgment on liability for unpaid franchise fees plus interest under the agreement; whether specific performance will be granted depends on further submissions on consideration for the alleged May 2013 variation and quantum will be addressed in the final judgment.
25 Feb 2019
Leave to apply for summary judgment granted and summary judgment entered for TVBI because World TV failed to establish an arguable defence that Mr Ho lacked authority to bind World TV to the 2016 Agreements; s18 proviso did not apply on the evidence so apparent authority bound World TV; TVBI proved the principal sum of NZD 1,012,897 and World TV had no arguable defence on quantum for the proven amounts; remaining claims on additional damages and pre-litigation costs to proceed to trial and interest calculation to be determined on papers.
31 May 2018
Appeal dismissed because there was no evidence Ong had authority from Loo to receive Zhong's early payments or to agree a cap on Zhong's liability prior to the power of attorney; even if Ong made such agreements they were outside his authority and Loo did not ratify the unauthorised side agreement limiting Zhong's liability, whereas Loo did ratify the formal variation and loan documents which established joint and several liability and equal ownership, so Loo is not liable for Ong's misappropriation or the side cap.
2 Mar 2018
Summary judgment was dismissed because it was reasonably arguable that the 2008–2015 levies were ultra vires for excluding the ground floor owners and that those ultra vires resolutions could not be validly ratified by the December 2015 EGM; accordingly there was a real question to be tried and summary judgment was inappropriate.