New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S143 land transfer act

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2020

MBG LTD v JOYCE [2020] NZHC 750

Citation

[2020] NZHC 750
Court

High Court

Final orders of 14 November 2019 were set aside because service was defective and the trustees had no notice; trustees have substantial arguable defences (unconscionable bargain and misleading/deceptive conduct under s9 FTA) to the invoice underpinning the caveats; although MBG Ltd has an arguable equitable interest, in the exercise of the court's discretion the caveat over the Papamoa property must lapse to avoid substantial injustice and risk of losing the family home (Tawa Street caveat to remain pending review).
3 Feb 2014

NUKU v TAYLOR [2014] NZHC 37

Citation

[2014] NZHC 37
Court

High Court

Given the evidence of the transferor's expressed intentions, the transferor's likely misunderstanding of the legal consequences of joint tenancy, and the acceptance of the transfer on that basis by the donees, it was reasonably arguable that the registered proprietor held the land on constructive trust for the wider whanau; accordingly the caveator justified continued registration and the application to remove the caveat was dismissed.
16 Oct 2008

DORCHESTER FINANCE LIMITED V RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED HC AK CIV2008-404-6332

Citation

openlaw-07206b41_95bf_4326_8f7b_c11e0de7ac80.pdf
Court

High Court

Risk Management Services failed to prove that Dorchester had knowledge of or consented to the alleged renewal lease; absent evidence of consent the alleged lease cannot bind the mortgagee under s119/s105, so the caveat protects no enforceable interest that can survive Dorchester's power of sale and must be removed on presentation of Dorchester's transfer in exercise of its power of sale.
14 Jun 2006

MIRAMS V NICHOLAS BRUCE AND BRUCE HC HAM CIV 2006-419-705

Citation

openlaw-dfbe9a54_d95a_4e15_a7e7_1c85fcdcb952.pdf
Court

High Court

Solicitors were not entitled to withhold approval because the reasons relied on (mismatch of settlement dates and resulting practical/financial inconvenience arising from a separate contract) were not legal impediments or conveyancing defects in the contract before them; therefore the notice of non‑approval was invalid, the sale remained on foot and the caveat is maintainable.

New Zealand Case Law

MBG LTD v JOYCE [2020] NZHC 750

NUKU v TAYLOR [2014] NZHC 37

DORCHESTER FINANCE LIMITED V RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED HC AK CIV2008-404-6332

MIRAMS V NICHOLAS BRUCE AND BRUCE HC HAM CIV 2006-419-705