Bayly v Hicks


Counsel for the respondents in the leading case on partition under the Property Law Act 2007. This involved extensive expert evidence on valuation, surveying and planning issues, with several hearings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal over 7 years: 7 day hearing in the High Court, 2011, reported at (2011) 13 NZCPR 568; Court of Appeal, 2012, reported at [2013] 2 NZLR 401; three day hearing in the High Court, 2015, following appointment of Court-appointed valuers and surveyors; resolved after Court of Appeal hearing was adjourned part-heard, 2016.

Wendco v Wiri Licensing Trust and Auckland Council


Counsel for the Wiri Licensing Trust (junior to Graham Kohler QC) on a significant dispute with its tenant, the operator of Wendy’s New Zealand. We successfully opposed two applications for interim injunction in lease dispute (2014). I also acted on the opposition to an application for judicial review regarding non-notification of resource consent application which went to the Supreme Court: High Court, 2014; Court of Appeal, 2015, (2015) 19 ELRNZ 328; and Supreme Court, 2016, [2017] 1 NZLR 1008.

Marr v Parkin


Counsel for the defendant on a High Court claim relating to purchase of a residential property (four day trial), with judgment for the defendant upheld on appeal. The issues included agency, knowing receipt, competing equitable priorities and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The Court awarded increased costs in relation to the proceeding and a related caveat matter: High Court, 2014; Court of Appeal, 2015; High Court costs judgment, 2015. In a separate proceeding between the same parties, the High Court made an order for possession of the property on summary basis (2015).

Jespersen v Secretary of the Treasury


Counsel for the applicants in seeking orders for sale of a forestry right (with or without the underlying land) and division of the proceeds under the Property Law Act 2007. The case was heard in the Whangarei High Court. It was complicated by one of the shares in the forestry syndicate being owned by a person who had become bankrupt, and the Official Assignee disclaiming the share. The share was accordingly bona vacantia but was also the subject of various applications for orders vesting the property, claims and securities including caveats. As a result, 11 sets of respondents were involved and it was necessary to remove caveats and have detailed orders around the marketing and sale process as well as provide for rectification of unequal contributions which had been made over time. The Court granted the sale order and made payments directing the reimbursement of partners who had paid costs associated with the property. The proceeds relating to the disputed share were directed to be held in trust pending resolution of the claims regarding that interest.

Go to Top