Carroll v Bates - [2018] NZHC 2463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-485-000550

[2018] NZHC 2463

IN THE MATTER of the Will of the late Joseph Reid Bates and the Estates of the late Joseph Reid Bates and Noeline Atholie Bates

BETWEEN

VIVIENNE MAREE CARROLL

Plaintiff

AND

MITCHELL REID BATES AND VIVIENNE MAREE CARROLL

First Defendants

AND

MITCHELL REID BATES AND VIVIENNE MAREE CARROLL

Second Defendants

AND

MITCHELL REID BATES, VIVIENNE MAREE CARROLL AND MICHAEL DAVID RIDLEY HANNA

Third Defendants

Hearing: 23 July 2018

Appearances:

W Palmer and P Moran for Plaintiff

A J F Wilding for the unborn grandchildren and great grandchildren

Judgment:

20 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The late Joseph Reid Bates and his wife Noeline had three children: Mitchell, Greg and Vivienne. They also had a successful family business, Bates Joinery Limited (BJL).

CARROLL v BATES [2018] NZHC 2463 [20 September 2018]

[2] Mr Bates took some care with his business succession planning. He supported his son, Mitchell, to establish Bates Aluminium Limited (BAL) in 1976, and ownership of that company was effectively transferred to Mitchell and his wife in April 2003. His other son, Greg, was a part owner of BJL. BJL was transferred to a new company, Bates Joinery (2008) Limited in 2008, and Mr Bates’ shares in that were transferred to Greg that year.

[3] Vivienne Carroll, the plaintiff, says that in recognition of the assets that her two brothers had received in their lifetimes, her parents decided she should have the former family home at 8 Shearer Avenue, Christchurch, upon their death. In 2008, her mother, Mrs Bates gave her the keys to the Shearer Avenue property, and since that date, she has treated it as her property.

[4] However, the representations she says were made by her parents to that effect were not carried out in either her mother’s or her father’s wills.

[5] The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff can satisfy this Court that she has a legal right to have the Shearer Avenue property transferred to her, notwithstanding her parents’ failure to gift this property to her in their respective wills.

The pleaded claims

[6] Vivienne frames her claim for the property to be vested in her in three alternative ways.

[7] First, she seeks perfection of an imperfect inter vivos gift. She says that in 2008, her mother, Mrs Bates made an unconditional inter vivos gift of the Shearer Avenue property to her, which her mother expressed through oral statements made to them and by handing over the keys to her. This gift was made by Mrs Bates, both as to her half interest in the property and on behalf of Mr Bates as to his half interest in the property, in furtherance of the previously expressed intentions of Mr Bates. However, Mr and Mrs Bates did not effect a transfer of the title of the Shearer Avenue property to Vivienne, meaning the gift was not perfected.

[8]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Carroll v Bates

Details

AGLC: Carroll v Bates [2018] NZHC 2463
Case: [2018] NZHC 2463
Decision Date: 20 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carroll v Bates involved the plaintiff, Vivienne Carroll, seeking the transfer of a property located at 8 Shearer Avenue, Christchurch, which she claimed was promised to her by her late parents, Joseph Reid Bates and Noeline Atholie Bates. The court had to decide whether Vivienne had a legal right to the property, despite it not being specifically mentioned in her parents' wills. Vivienne's claims were framed in three alternative ways: perfection of an imperfect inter vivos gift, a declaration that the property is held on a remedial constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the evidence did not support the claim for an imperfect inter vivos gift to be perfected, as the necessary formal requirements for gifting land had not been met. However, the court held that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel could be applied to grant Vivienne the property. The court found that there were clear representations by both parents, particularly Mrs Bates, that the property would belong to Vivienne, and that she had reasonably relied on these representations by investing time and money into improving the property. The court ordered that the fee simple estate in the freehold of 8 Shearer Avenue be vested in Vivienne as the sole owner. The court also ordered that the estates of the late Mr and Mrs Bates were jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders