Guppy v Wohler

Case [2023] NZHC 1799


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2023-488-63

[2023] NZHC 1799

UNDER Section 143 Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an order that caveat not lapse

BETWEEN

SIMON JON GUPPY and MARIA QUAYLE-GUPPY

Applicants

AND

DIANE CHRISTINE WOHLER and LYNNE ELISABETH TEMPLETON

Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

11 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J


This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2023 at 12 noon pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Atlas Legal Ltd (Kerikeri) for Applicants

GUPPY v WOHLER [2023] NZHC 1799 [11 July 2023]

[1]        The applicants apply without notice for an interim order that their caveat not lapse.

[2]        I have read the affidavit of Mr Simon Guppy made on 5 July 2023 and the memorandum of his counsel. I am told that the applicants lodged a caveat against the title to the property in which they dwell on 29 November 2021. The respondents, the registered proprietors in their capacity as trustees of a family trust, applied to the Registrar for the lapse of the caveat. The applicants were served with notice of that application on or about 8 June 2023.

[3]        The applicants filed an application in this Court on 16 June 2023 for an order that the caveat not lapse.   They  gave notice of this to the Registrar within the       10 working days period stipulated in s 143(3)(a) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 (the Act).

[4]        Pursuant to s 143(3)(b) of the Act, the applicants have 20 working days from the date of the s 143(3)(a) notice to the Registrar to give a further notice to the Registrar of an order made under s 143(4) of the Act. Otherwise the caveat will lapse.

  1. The orders available under s 143(4) are:

(a)an order that the caveat not lapse;

(b)an interim order that the caveat not lapse;

(c)an order adjourning the application.

[6]        In this case, if the caveat is not to lapse, one of the above orders must be obtained and notified by 17 July 2023.

[7]        An interim order is necessary because the registry (having received the applicants’ affidavits as to proper registry and in support of the substantive application on 6 July 2023) has allocated 28 July 2023 as the date of first call.

[8]        I am satisfied that Mr Guppy’s affidavit provides prima facie support for the continuation of the caveat.

[9]        I make an interim order pursuant to s 147(4)(b) of the Act that caveat 12275628.1 not lapse pending further order of the Court.

[10]      Leave is reserved to the respondents, on not less than three working days’ notice, to apply to amend or extinguish the above interim order.

[11]Costs are reserved.


Brewer J

Details
AGLC
Guppy v Wohler [2023] NZHC 1799
Case
[2023] NZHC 1799
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon Jon Guppy and Maria Quayle-Guppy, who are applicants, applied for an interim order that their caveat on a property not lapse. They lodged the caveat on 29 November 2021, and the registered proprietors, Diane Christine Wohler and Lynne Elisabeth Templeton, applied for the lapse of the caveat. The applicants filed an application on 16 June 2023, and the registrar received their affidavits on 6 July 2023. The court granted an interim order that the caveat not lapse pending further order of the court. The respondents have the option to apply to amend or extinguish the order on at least three working days’ notice.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the applicants could obtain an interim order that their caveat not lapse. The applicants argued that they had a prima facie case for the continuation of the caveat, and the court was satisfied with the affidavit provided by Mr Guppy. The court also considered the timeline for the hearing of the substantive application and the need for an interim order to prevent the lapse of the caveat.

The court made an interim order that the caveat not lapse pending further order of the court. The court was satisfied that the applicants provided prima facie support for the continuation of the caveat, and an interim order was necessary to prevent the lapse of the caveat. The respondents have the option to apply to amend or extinguish the order on at least three working days’ notice. The costs are reserved.

This case highlights the importance of timely filings and the need for an interim order to prevent the lapse of a caveat. The court considered the timeline for the hearing of the substantive application and the need for an interim order to prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court was satisfied that the applicants provided prima facie support for the continuation of the caveat, and the respondents have the option to apply to amend or extinguish the order on at least three working days’ notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.