New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Survivorship

Legal area

Court

7 Apr 2021

ZHANG V GUO [2021] NZHC 714

Citation

[2021] NZHC 714
Court

High Court

No breach of moral duty: plaintiff received substantial benefit by survivorship (half-share of Greenhithe subject to mortgage and $43,950) and was not shown to need maintenance or support; equitable contribution refused because under Administration Act s34 the Greenhithe property (the asset purchased with the loans) is primarily liable for the mortgage and the Glenfield property is not liable due to deceased's testamentary intention; unjust enrichment not pursued and would fail; order made to ensure mortgage security is limited to properties owned by plaintiff; costs to second defendant.
3 Dec 2018

COOKE v McMILLAN & ANOR [2018] NZHC 3154

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3154
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the defendant's second settlement offer (which provided financial relief broadly equivalent to the eventual outcome), costs up to 23 March 2017 are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis; costs between 23 March 2017 and 11 May 2018 lie where they fall; because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the third settlement offer after 11 May 2018 (and made an untimely and unreasonable counter-offer), the first defendant is entitled to 2B costs for the period after 11 May 2018.
31 Oct 2018

COCHRANE v NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2830

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2830
Court

High Court

Court held disputed assets (a $600,000 loan advanced from the couple's joint account and $331,465 in term deposits) were joint personal/marital property of Alan and Marcelyn Barnes, not partnership assets; their inclusion in partnership accounts was an error attributable to tax-driven, special-purpose accounting by the non‑professional partner and did not defeat clear evidence (bank mandate, solicitor instructions, owners' account treatment) that the parties intended those assets to be jointly held and to pass by survivorship; correction of the accounts was therefore warranted and plaintiffs'…
1 May 2018

HAU v HAU [2018] NZHC 881

Citation

[2018] NZFLR 464
Court

High Court

The Family Court erred in finding no jurisdiction; the PRA must be read purposively to permit a surviving spouse to seek declarations/orders under ss25(1) and 25(3) to classify and vest relationship property even where legal title passed by survivorship, because LTA s61 is a rebuttable statutory fiction and equity can establish beneficial tenancy in common post-death; time limits do not bar the present classification step because classification may change estate size and trigger administration, so the PRA claim is not out of time.
16 Feb 2017

R J KENNEDY v I J KENNEDY [2017] NZHC 168

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 149
Court

High Court

The Court refused to appoint an administrator and dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment application because the applicant could not satisfy the s 88(2) 'serious injustice' threshold nor show that appointment under s 6(2) or s 19 was necessary or expedient; s 25(3) could not provide meaningful relief in the circumstances and the proposed family protection claim was weak and unlikely to justify the costs and practical consequences of appointment.
30 Jul 2014

GATESHEAD INVESTMENTS LTD v PARANUI PROPERTIES LTD CA622/2013 [2014] NZCA 361

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 516
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held on the facts that the parties manifested a mutual intention to sever the joint tenancy in equity prior to Mr Harvey's death; section 47 voids the relationship property agreement only to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditors' claim (which at the time of the agreement extended only to Mrs Harvey's half share) and does not nullify an antecedent equitable severance as to Mr Harvey's separate half share; accordingly only Mrs Harvey's one half share vested in the Official Assignee and the executor's position was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jul 2014

THE NATIONAL HEART FOUNDATION OF NEW ZEALAND v PALMER [2014] NZHC 1740

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1740
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed because as a matter of law the relevant chattels were relationship property that passed to Mr Burton by survivorship and therefore the Palmers could not have provided services by 'loaning' chattels that were already Mr Burton's; the LRTPA's reference to unenforceability relates to promises not to the existence of services, so no arguable LRTPA claim existed and the Family Court's grant of an extension of time was set aside.
13 Mar 2014

HARVEY & ORS v GATESHEAD INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS [2014] NZHC 464

Citation

[2014] NZHC 464
Court

High Court

Both parties achieved roughly equal and mutually offsetting substantive results: the judgment creditors succeeded at summary judgment in voiding the relationship property agreement and removing the PRA notice, while the executor succeeded at trial on severance of the joint tenancy preventing vesting by survivorship. Applying the Chilcott approach, the realistic appraisal of the end result mandated that costs lie where they fall.
17 May 2012

HARVEY V GATESHEAD INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-5909

Citation

openlaw-dd98d8f1_5381_4377_99c1_91a66bdfe03f.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court the relationship property agreement of 16 December 2009 was intended to defeat creditors and/or had the effect of defeating creditors and is therefore void against the first and second defendants under s 47; however, whether the joint tenancy was severed in equity during the deceased's lifetime is an arguable defence that prevents summary judgment on the question of vesting by survivorship, so that the removal of the notice of claim is ordered but the survivorship/vesting issue must proceed to trial.
16 Jun 2009

Estate of Wilfred Hughes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 108
Court

District Court

The statutory scheme requires that a claimant be alive at the time of assessment under cl 59 to qualify for lump sum compensation; because Mr Hughes died before any assessment the Estate is not entitled to payment and the appeal is dismissed.