Conrad v Thomson

[2022] NZHC 2845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2022-463-40

[2022] NZHC 2845

UNDER

the Land Transfer Act 2017, section 143(2)(b)

IN THE MATTER OF

an application to sustain a caveat

BETWEEN

CLEO SONIA CONRAD

Applicant

AND

DESMOND RONALD THOMSON

Respondent

Hearing:	4 October 2022
Appearances:	David G Hayes for the Applicant Priscilla Kirk for the Respondent
Judgment:	2 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Security for costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 November 2022 at 11:00am

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Hunwick Law Limited, Hamilton, for the Applicant

O’Sullivan Clemens (J W Murray/P Kirk), Rotorua, for the Respondent

Counsel:

David Hayes, New Zealand Commercial Law Corp Ltd, Hamilton, for the Applicant

CONRAD v THOMSON [2022] NZHC 2845 [2 November 2022]

Introduction

[1]        Desmond Thomson, the respondent in this proceeding, applies for security for costs against the applicant, Cleo Conrad.

Background

[2]        Ms Conrad lodged a caveat over the title to 274 Spencer Road, Lake Tarawera, Rotorua (the Caveat). Mr Thomson applied to lapse the caveat. Ms Conrad, in turn, on 2 June 2022 applied to the Court for an order that the Caveat not lapse. The Court made an interim order on 13 June 2022 that the Caveat not lapse pending further order of the Court.

[3]        Mr  Thomson  has  applied  for  security  for  costs  against  Ms  Conrad.    Mr Thomson’s security for costs application is to be heard and determined prior to the substantive hearing. This judgment determines Mr Thomson’s application.

[4]        The background to the Caveat is that in 1997, Ms Conrad was residing in the United Kingdom. Ms Conrad has deposed that she was looking for an investment property to purchase in  New Zealand.  Ms Conrad’s mother, Ms Bailey,  advised  Ms Conrad that she had found the Lake Tarawera property. Ms Conrad says she agreed for Ms Bailey to purchase the property for her as bare trustee for her interests for $268,000. She subsequently transferred that sum to New Zealand to enable settlement on 10 November 1997, in the expectation that Ms Bailey would be the only person named on the title.

[5]        Ms Conrad claims that a month  after  settlement  she  became  aware  that Mr Thomson, who was at that time  Ms  Bailey’s  de  facto  partner,  had  coerced Ms Bailey into agreeing to name him on the title with her. She says it was never her intention for Mr Thomson to have any interest in the property. Instead of insisting he be removed from the title, however, Ms Conrad had Ms Bailey execute a loan

agreement for a loan secured over the property and that was intended to protect her interest in the property.

[6]        Ms Conrad says she later discovered that Ms Bailey and Mr Thomson had executed a property relationship settlement, whereby Ms Bailey’s name was removed from the property’s title and only Mr Thomson’s name was left. She…