Legal Research
Cases
Coffey v Coffey

Coffey v Coffey

Case [2012] NZHC 1765 19 July 2012

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Equitable Estoppel

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CIV-2011-406-000284 [2012] NZHC 1765

UNDER The Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF an application for a sale order pursuant to ss 339-343 of the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN LEO TIMOTHY COFFEY MARCELLA ANNE COFFEY BARRY MATTHEW COFFEY ANDREA MICHELLE KERWIN PAUL NESTOR KERWIN Plaintiffs

ANDTRAVIS LEO COFFEY GERARD WILLIAM COFFEY SANDRA MAREE COFFEY Defendants

Hearing: 7 May 2012
(Heard at Blenheim)

Appearances: Q A M Davies and T A Hutchinson for Plaintiffs/Applicants
D Chesterman for Defendants/Respondents

Judgment: 19 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE
[as to plaintiffs’ summary judgment application]

Introduction

[1] The parties are the co-owners of a family holiday house in the Marlborough

Sounds. The property has been in family ownership since 1989.

COFFEY V COFFEY HC BLE CIV-2011-406-000284 [19 July 2012]

[2] The property is owned by the parties as tenants in common in one sixth shares. The plaintiffs hold four-sixths. The defendants own the remaining two
shares. The shares are owned:

Leo and Marcella (parents/plaintiffs) – two-sixths

Barry (son/plaintiff) one-sixth

Andrea and Paul (daughter and son-in-law/plaintiffs) – one-sixth

Travis (son/defendant) one-sixth

Gerard and Sandra (son and daughter-in-law/defendants) one-sixth.

[3] As the existence of litigation indicates, the family is divided over the future of the property. The plaintiffs want to sell their shares, whether as part of a full sale of the property or by sale to the defendants. They seek a suite of orders to effect a sale.

[4] Defendants oppose the orders sought. They rely on rights which they say arise by agreement or in equity. They further assert that there is a need for the Court to address the value of contributions made. The defendants say there are material factual disputes. They say that the case is unsuitable for resolution by summary judgment. They say that the breadth of discretion awarded to the Court under s 339
Property Law Act 2007 highlights the unsuitability of this case for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs’ summary judgment application – the general principles

[5] The starting point for a plaintiff’s summary judgment application is r 12.2(1) High Court Rules, which requires that the plaintiff satisfy the Court that the defendant has no defence to any cause of action in the statement of claim or to a particular cause of action.

[6] I summarise the general principles which I adopt in relation to this application:

(a) Commonsense, flexibility and a sense of justice are required (Haines v

Carter [2001] 2 NZLR 167 (CA) at 187).

(b)The onus is on the plaintiff seeking summary judgment to show that there is no arguable defence. The Court must be left without any real doubt or uncertainty on the matter.

(c) The Court will not hesitate to decide questions of law where appropriate.

(d)The Court will not attempt to resolve genuine conflicts of evidence or to assess the credibility of statements and affidavits.

(e) In determining whether there is a genuine and relevant conflict of facts, the Court is entitled…

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 Coffey v Coffey

Details

AGLC: Coffey v Coffey [2012] NZHC 1765
Case: [2012] NZHC 1765
Decision Date: 19 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Coffey v Coffey were co-owners of a family holiday house on Arapawa Island in the Marlborough Sounds. The plaintiffs (the parents and two of their children) sought a sale order for the property under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007. The defendants (the other two children) opposed the sale, asserting rights arising by agreement or in equity. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment. The key legal issue was whether the defendants had an arguable defence. The Court found that the defendants had no arguable defence to the sale, as their claims of an oral family agreement, constructive trust, resulting trust, and equitable estoppel were not supported by the evidence. The Court granted the plaintiffs' application for a sale order, finding that the relevant considerations under s 342 of the Act favoured an order of sale. The Court ordered the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the co-owners according to their respective shares. The defendants were given an opportunity to purchase the plaintiffs' shares at a fair and reasonable price.

Orders