30 Aug 2023
The evidence established the loan was repaid in 1975 and the mortgagees cannot be located and are likely deceased; accordingly, under s 109(1)(a) Property Law Act 2007 the court had jurisdiction and it was appropriate to order discharge of the mortgage and to dispense with service and allow commencement by originating application.
3 May 2023
The court concluded it could not find a breach or failure to keep accounts on the evidence because key records were inaccessible and that absence was at least partly caused by the plaintiff; however the trustee nonetheless has a duty to account and, to establish liability, the court ordered a structured process (access to records, 60 days to reconcile, reciprocal supported accounting) under Part 16 rather than determining breach on the incomplete record.
27 Jul 2022
The Court ordered removal of the 'no survivorship' endorsement because the statutory basis for its continued use was removed by the Land Transfer Act 2017, the trust deed vested the trustees with power to deal with trust property, all identifiable beneficiaries consented and no prejudice was demonstrated; accordingly removal was lawful and appropriate to permit the proposed transfer.
25 Mar 2020
The 'no survivorship' notation was removed because the trustees validly resolved to sell the Mepal property under the powers and procedures in the trust deed, the property is not Trust corpus and is general land so Māori Land Court oversight was not required, and the Registrar-General (LINZ) did not oppose removal of the notation on those bases.
18 Oct 2019
Pursuant to s 52(1)(a) Trustee Act 1956 the Court will grant a vesting order to amend registration so that the trustees on title reflect the current trustees of the trust where a trustee has been validly removed due to lack of capacity, there is no prejudice to third parties and proper service has been effected.
30 Jan 2014
The application was refused because it was reasonably arguable that the plaintiff holds the property subject to a constructive trust in favour of the defendants who lodged the caveat, and that arguable equitable interest justified leaving the caveat in place pending resolution.
14 Aug 2013
Although Pierce was registered as a joint proprietor, the evidence established an enforceable shared understanding that Ian and Helen would take the existing dwelling for $100,000 and Pierce and Jennifer would be responsible for acquiring and financing the vacant lot and building 24A. Ian and Helen paid substantially more than they contracted to and by the balance of probabilities Pierce and Jennifer hold no lawful interest in 24 Hiwi Crescent. Accordingly the Court declined to exercise its discretion under s 339(1)(b) to order division; the property is owned solely by Ian and Helen Spargo.
2 Aug 2006
With negligence conceded, appeal dismissed because plaintiffs proved no loss attributable to the negligence: the error was not discovered until 1998 and plaintiffs declined an available and effective remedy (reciprocal transfers) thereby assuming the risk of any later detriment; claims of customary title were untenable given registered fee simple and purchase; fraud was not pleaded or evidenced and added nothing to the case.