New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation of property

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2023

EEN & ORS v BODY CORPORATE 384911 & ORS [2023] NZHC 524

Citation

[2023] NZHC 524
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate errors of sufficient merit to justify appeal and the plaintiffs have substantial New Zealand property available to meet a costs award even on conservative valuation, rendering an order for security for costs inappropriate; jurisdictional challenge under r5.45(1)(b) was rendered moot by jurisdiction under r5.45(1)(a)(i).
14 Jul 2020

MINEHAN & ANOR v McGUIGAN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1686

Citation

(2020) 21 NZCPR 135
Court

High Court

An order under s 339(1)(c) was warranted and made because the plaintiffs as majority co-owners (three-quarters) established undue hardship and impediment to efficient farming operations caused by the defendants' non-engagement and obstruction, division in kind was impracticable given three discontiguous parcels, plaintiffs had made substantial contributions and the court could bind the defendant to transfer his share; an updated valuation is required to determine the fair and reasonable purchase price and costs are to be awarded to the plaintiffs (quantum reserved).
20 Dec 2016

Vivian v Kellerman [2016] NZHC 3163

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3163
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's exercise of its s182 discretion to vary the nuptial trust and allocate an equal share of the Woolston property to the wife because the Trust was settled for the family home and the children's interests were adequately protected by ensuring both parents were financially enabled; absent explicit deed clauses removing fiduciary constraints, the Court would not definitively classify the husband's trustee powers as relationship property on Clayton's basis; valuation and calculations by the Family Court were correct except for a discrete EQC/carpet adjustmen…
29 Oct 2014

MAKETU ESTATES LTD v S J ROBB [2014] NZHC 2664

Citation

(2014) 16 NZCPR 166
Court

High Court

The agent, Mr Robb, deliberately withheld the existence of an agreement in principle from a competing purchaser and misled that purchaser into thinking the sale was 'on hold'; this conduct was misleading or deceptive under s9 FTA and breached fiduciary obligations of loyalty such that it caused the vendor to sell below market value; market value was established at $4,945,000 and damages were assessed as the difference between that value and the sale price net of commissions, resulting in judgment for plaintiff; defendants not entitled to commission.
24 May 2012

K V V HC WN CIV-2011-485-002682

Citation

openlaw-6edb3387_77ba_4bdc_a4a0_0007283c803f.pdf
Court

High Court

No s21P agreement existed for Tamana because the sale contract and conduct did not evidence objective agreement on future division; Family Court's valuation of Tamana was quashed because it misdirected itself by prioritising parties' use and motives over market value; Family Court erred in setting aside the apartment transfer under s44 because there was insufficient evidence that the appellant intended to defeat the respondent's claims or had the requisite knowledge of imminent law change to infer such intent.
10 Aug 2011

DAVID WALTER KONI V LYNNE ANNE KONI HC AK CIV-2011-404-1634

Citation

openlaw-2bfbebdb_bb39_44eb_8b52_30379267a5b5.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's interim orders: the boat remains vested to the appellant as his separate property but the Family Court was entitled to fix an interim compensating payment of $43,500 from joint trust funds and to order an interim distribution of $30,000 to the respondent; refusal to compel delivery on the appellant's proposed detailed conditions was correct and issues about final valuation and adjustments remain for the substantive hearing.
9 Mar 2009

WAIMAORIMANU LIMITED V KELSO HC AK CIV 2007-404-6915

Citation

openlaw-27ec1c5f_a83f_41f3_b9a6_8c2733a99f5a.pdf
Court

High Court

The valuer owed a duty of care to the nominee company and breached that duty by negligent valuation; damages are assessed by the Nykredit formulation (comparing loaned funds plus appropriate interest with the true value of the security and rights acquired); applying that measure and accounting for recoveries and a $1,000,000 settlement, the plaintiff suffered a net loss of $6,033,245 and is entitled to judgment for that sum plus costs.

New Zealand Case Law

EEN & ORS v BODY CORPORATE 384911 & ORS [2023] NZHC 524

MINEHAN & ANOR v McGUIGAN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1686

Vivian v Kellerman [2016] NZHC 3163

MAKETU ESTATES LTD v S J ROBB [2014] NZHC 2664

K V V HC WN CIV-2011-485-002682

DAVID WALTER KONI V LYNNE ANNE KONI HC AK CIV-2011-404-1634

WAIMAORIMANU LIMITED V KELSO HC AK CIV 2007-404-6915