Property Litigation

Property Disputes and Litigation


Geoff Jenkin is an experienced property lawyer in the conduct of claims regarding property litigation including claims under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and disputes concerning real estate.

Have Questions?
btn call numberbtn submit email enquiry new

Property Litigation And The Law

 
Property litigation can be diverse and include many areas of the law. The areas of dispute can relate to:

  • Easements (the right to cross or use someone else’s land)
  • Enforcing or cancelling sale and purchase agreements, or leases.
  • Caveats – claims to an interest in property
  • Landlord and tenant disputes
  • Possession claims
  • Recovery of rent
 

Dispute resolution work to resolve claims may include:

 
  • Assisting with the preparation of relationship property agreements
  • Assisting with proceedings in the Family Court for the division of relationship property
  • Investigation work into the hiding of property and assets
  • Discovery work related to the finding of hidden property and assets
  • Court orders relating to the protection of property 
  • Freezing of assets by way of injunction and detention orders
Specialising in Disputes Relating to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976


Geoff Jenkin regularly litigates and resolves claims for the division of property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 with respect to separated married couples and disputes under the Act involving couples in a de facto relationship.
 

 
Resolve Property Disputes in Auckland By:
 
  • Assisting in determining if the case is viable
  • Assessing cases which are legally complex and procedurally difficult
  • Working to negotiate the best outcome for you
icon new litigation 1
Ensuring Cases Are Viable
 
icon new litigation 2
ASSESSING CASES WHICH ARE LEGALLY
COMPLEX AND PROCEDURALLY
DIFFICULT
 
icon new litigation 3
WORKING TO NEGOTIATE THE BEST SOLUTIONS FOR YOU
Have Questions About Property Litigation?
btn call number 2orbtn email us new
See More of
Our Services
 
Trust Litigation
Find out more »
 
Deceased Estates
Find out more »
 
General Services
Find out more »
 
Articles
Find out more »
 
Case Notes
Find out more »
Example Cases
C v C [2015] NZFC 11038

The Family Court had made an order pursuant to s43 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 freezing the contents of various bank accounts controlled by the wife in her name and/or the name of three different trusts controlled by her as well. One of the accounts was disclosed to contain nearly $1.5m on term deposit. The wife applied to the Court to have the freezing order discharged on the ground that the bulk of the funds held in the account were her separate property because she had inherited the money from her father. Judge Druce analysed the affidavit evidence in great detail and concluded that the wife had disposed of the money to a trust set up for the purpose and that, as such, the money could possibly be outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
read more >

 
MacRae v Walshe [2013] NZCA 664

The Walshe v MacRae case then went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that Keane J was correct in the way that he had interpreted the wording of the right-of-way easement. The evidence of the purpose of words of limitation contained in the wording was central to the outcome. The case is also useful to assist in the manner that Courts assess compensation in cases where easements are modified in terms of s317(2) of the Property Law Act 2007. The Court of Appeal confirmed that it is correct to apply principles contained in Jacobsen Holdings Ltd v Drexel, the willing buyer and the willing seller, in determining what is appropriate compensation. The Court also provided helpful pointers as to the type of expert evidence that is appropriate when the Court is asked to assess compensation of this type.

 
French v Public Trust (HC Hamilton, M167/02, 6 December 2002, Master Faire)

In this case the Court was concerned with the issue of whether a beneficiary under the will of a deceased person was able to caveat title to a farm that was the main asset of the estate. The Court held that this ground could not support a claim to a caveat. However, the Court decided in the circumstances the applicant was entitled to caveat the title on the basis that he was executor and trustee of an earlier will which he was trying to have admitted to probate.

btn see more case notes
Physical Address

3 Princes St,
Auckland,
1010

OFFICE HOURS

Monday -  Friday: 8am – 6pm

Phone: 027 451 7630
Phone: +64 9 307 5294
Email:
Name
Email
Message