WT Trustee Company Limited v Cato

Case [2014] NZHC 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-493 [2014] NZHC 963

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 1952

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an order that caveat
9615955.1 against dealings not lapse

BETWEEN

WT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Applicant

AND

BRUCE HILLIER CATO, GILLIAN SARAH LAWRIE and RICHARD GRAHAM COMPTON

Respondents
Hearing: 5 May 2014

Appearances:

W D Woodd for Applicant
D J G Cox for Respondents

Judgment:

9 May 2014

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

Solicitors:           Boyle Mathieson, Auckland

Rennie Cox, Auckland

WT TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD v CATO [2014] NZHC 963 [9 May 2014]

I decline to make an order that caveat 9615995.1 not lapse.  I dismiss the originating application dated 6 March 2014.  My reasons shall follow shortly.

..................................................................

M Peters J

Details
AGLC
WT Trustee Company Limited v Cato [2014] NZHC 963
Case
[2014] NZHC 963
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WT Trustee Company Limited sought to prevent the lapse of a caveat against dealings lodged by Bruce Hillier Cato, Gillian Sarah Lawrie and Richard Graham Compton. The dispute was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The applicants sought to prevent the caveat from lapsing by virtue of section 158 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had a real prospect of establishing a claim to prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court considered the relevant criteria for preventing the lapse of a caveat, and whether the applicants had satisfied those criteria. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a real prospect of establishing a claim, and therefore declined to make an order that the caveat not lapse. The court was satisfied that the applicants had not demonstrated that they had a real prospect of establishing a claim that would prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court considered the relevant criteria for preventing the lapse of a caveat, including the requirement that the caveator must have a real prospect of establishing a claim that would prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court found that the applicants had not satisfied this criterion, as they had not demonstrated a real prospect of establishing a claim that would prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court also considered the applicants' arguments regarding the public interest in preventing the lapse of the caveat, and the potential prejudice that would be suffered by the applicants if the caveat were to lapse. However, the court found that these arguments were insufficient to establish a real prospect of success. The court dismissed the originating application and declined to make an order that the caveat not lapse. The court's decision was based on the applicants' failure to demonstrate a real prospect of establishing a claim that would prevent the lapse of the caveat. The court found that the applicants had not satisfied the relevant criteria for preventing the lapse of a caveat, and that there was no real prospect of success in any claim that the applicants might bring. The court also found that the applicants' arguments regarding the public interest and potential prejudice were insufficient to establish a real prospect of success.

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.