New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary removal of caveat

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2019

CHEN v SANCTUARY DEVELOPMENTS NO 8 LTD [2019] NZHC 1476

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1476
Court

High Court

The plaintiff established a reasonably arguable case that the 30 June 2015 Loan Agreement granted him an equitable entitlement to a second mortgage on settlement and that the contractual and factual matrix did not make that entitlement patently extinguished by the failure of the GS Scheme or by subsequent documents; accordingly under s 145A the caveat should not lapse and substantive proceedings should be ordered to determine the plaintiff's entitlement.
13 Feb 2017

F E MORRISON BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN M F FIBBES v D K FIBBES [2017] NZHC 128

Citation

[2017] NZHC 128
Court

High Court

Because there was a reasonably arguable case that Ms Morrison had a beneficial interest and genuine factual disputes existed about whether the funds were gifted or taken without authority, the caveat should not be summarily removed and must be sustained pending substantive proceedings; accordingly the caveat was continued until 28 April 2017 to give Ms Morrison time to file a proceeding.
24 Jun 2009

BERRY V ATKINSON HC AK CIV 2009-470-368

Citation

openlaw-7bd3e39b_32fa_485c_b219_56a6c40f1895.pdf
Court

High Court

The caveat cannot be removed because it is not patently clear there is no arguable equitable interest: material factual disputes exist as to both the nature and destination of funds and the extent of services, and the accountant's analysis relies on assumptions and respondent-supplied information; accordingly the applicant has retained a reasonably arguable case and the caveat must remain.

New Zealand Case Law

CHEN v SANCTUARY DEVELOPMENTS NO 8 LTD [2019] NZHC 1476

F E MORRISON BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN M F FIBBES v D K FIBBES [2017] NZHC 128

BERRY V ATKINSON HC AK CIV 2009-470-368