HND HOLDING LIMITED vs EE KUOH LAU

Case [2023] NZHC 3663


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2953

[2023] NZHC 3663

UNDER Section 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for an order removing caveat no. 12780903.1 (North Auckland Registry)

BETWEEN

HND HOLDING LIMITED

Applicant

AND

EE KUOH LAU

Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2023

Counsel:

R O Parmenter for the Applicant Respondent in person

Judgment:

14 December 2023


JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN


This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2023 at 4 pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

R Parmenter, Auckland

Ganda & Associates, Auckland

HND HOLDING LTD v LAU [2023] NZHC 3663 [14 December 2023]

Introduction

[1]                  This is an application by HND Holding Limited, as mortgagee, for an order removing a caveat from a title to a property at 111 Waitakere Road, Waitakere. HND has sold the property exercising its power of sale. HND is prevented from completing settlement of the sale by a caveat lodged against the title by Mr Lau.

[2]                  HND applied without notice for an order removing the caveat. I directed HND to proceed on a Pickwick basis. Mr Lau was served, and he appeared by VMR when this proceeding was called in the Caveats List on 12 December 2023. Mr Lau has since filed a notice of opposition, supporting affidavit from Daniel Kwok, and written submissions.

[3]                  When the matter was called on 12 December 2023, the parties agreed that I should determine the matter on the papers, which I now do.

Discussion

[4]                  The caveat in question, 12780903.1, was lodged by Mr Lau against two Records of Title:

(a)Record of Title Identifier NA 87D/983, which is the subject of this proceeding;

(b)Record of Title Identifier NA 82B/163. I gave judgment in CIV-2023- 404-2783 on 1 December 2023, ordering that the caveat be removed from that Record of Title.

[5]                  The background to this application is largely identical to the background set out in paras [3] to [13] of my judgment dated 1 December 2023 in CIV-2023-404- 2783. The registered proprietor of the property in question in this proceeding is DASP Properties Limited, a company controlled by Daniel Kwok. The property has also been sold by HND to Joe Holdings Ltd.

[6]                  The interests claimed by Mr Lau in this case are identical to those claimed in CIV-2023-404-2783. As in that case, Mr Lau’s caveat was registered after HND’s mortgage, and is subordinate to it.

[7]                  For the same reasons that prevailed in CIV-2023-404-2783, Mr Lau’s caveat must be removed from the title to 111 Waitakere Road, Waitakere. In short, HND has an indefeasible title as registered mortgagee.

Orders

[8]                  I order that the caveat number 12780903.1 be removed from Record of Title Identifier NA 87D/983.

[9]                  Mr Lau shall pay costs to HND on a 2B basis, limited to the filing of the originating application and affidavit  in  support  and  .5  of  a  list  appearance  on  12 December 2023, plus disbursements as fixed by the registrar.


Associate Judge Brittain

Details
AGLC
HND HOLDING LIMITED vs EE KUOH LAU [2023] NZHC 3663
Case
[2023] NZHC 3663
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application by HND Holding Limited, as a mortgagee, seeking an order to remove a caveat from a property title at 111 Waitakere Road, Waitakere. The property was subject to a caveat lodged by Mr Lau, which HND argued was preventing the completion of the sale of the property. HND had already exercised its power of sale and sold the property to Joe Holdings Ltd. The application was made without notice, and Mr Lau was served and appeared by video-mediated representation (VMR) when the matter was called in the Caveats List. The Associate Judge directed the matter to be determined on the papers.

The legal issues before the court were whether the caveat should be removed from the title to the property and whether Mr Lau had a valid claim that would justify the continuation of the caveat. The court examined the background of the case, including the relationship between the parties and the history of the caveat. The court noted that the caveat had been lodged after HND's mortgage and was subordinate to it. The court also referred to a previous judgment in CIV-2023-404-2783, which had ordered the removal of the same caveat from another property.

The Associate Judge found that the caveat must be removed from the title to the property for the same reasons that prevailed in the previous judgment. The court held that HND had an indefeasible title as the registered mortgagee, and Mr Lau's caveat did not have any valid basis. The court ordered that the caveat number 12780903.1 be removed from the Record of Title Identifier NA 87D/983. The court also ordered that Mr Lau pay costs to HND on a 2B basis, limited to the filing of the originating application and affidavit in support and 0.5 of a list appearance on 12 December 2023, plus disbursements as fixed by the registrar.

This case highlights the importance of the indefeasibility of title in New Zealand property law. The court found that HND's interest as a registered mortgagee took precedence over Mr Lau's caveat, which was subordinate to it. The court also noted that Mr Lau's claims were identical to those made in a previous proceeding, and the same reasons applied. The case serves as a reminder that caveats are not a substitute for legal proceedings and should only be used in appropriate circumstances. The court's decision to remove the caveat and order costs against Mr Lau sends a strong message that frivolous or unfounded caveats will not be tolerated.

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.