Conroy v Taylor - [2025] NZCA 198

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA659/2024
[2025] NZCA 198

BETWEEN	HELEN CONROY AS TRUSTEE OF THE HAWKRIDGE DOOLITTLE TRUST Applicant
AND	CHRISTOPHER GEORGE TAYLOR AND MGH TAYLOR LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE LE ROY TRUST Respondents

Court:	Courtney and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	A M E Parlane for Applicant W E Andrews for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	28 May 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Thomas J)

Helen Conroy has applied for an extension of time to appeal a High Court costs order made against her on 8 August 2024.[1] Her application is some 70 working days out of time.

Background

[1]Taylor v Conroy [2024] NZHC 2210 [judgment under appeal].

Ms Conroy and her husband, Mr Taylor, purchased a property in Auckland in 2006 as tenants in common in unequal shares through their respective trusts, the Conroy Trust and the Taylor Trust.[2] Mr Taylor died in 2010 and Ms Conroy continued to occupy the property pursuant to a licence to occupy.
[2]The names of these trusts are recorded in their deeds as the Le Roy Trust (Taylor Trust) and the Hawkridge Doolittle Trust (Conroy Trust). The naming of the trusts in this judgment follows the High Court judgments for the sake of clarity.
The trustees of the Taylor Trust (the Taylor Trustees) applied for an order for the sale of the property and division of proceeds under s 339(1) of the Property Law Act 2007 which was granted by Johnstone J on 5 June 2024.[3]
[3]Taylor v Conroy [2024] NZHC 1467.
On 8 August 2024, the Judge ordered Ms Conroy to vacate the property and made directions to enable the sale.[4] The Judge noted that, although Ms Conroy and the professional trustee were sued as trustees of the Conroy Trust, Ms Conroy defended the proceeding alone and therefore acted unreasonably by pursuing her own personal interests as a trustee.[5] He awarded costs against Ms Conroy despite her being legally aided because he considered the circumstances to be exceptional.[6] He allowed the costs to be deducted from the Conroy Trust’s share of the sale proceeds.[7]
[4]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [14] and [19].
[5]At [9]–[12].
[6]Legal Services Act 2011, s 45(3); and judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [13] and [18].
[7]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [17].
Ms Conroy subsequently submitted that costs could not be deducted from the Conroy Trust’s share of the sale proceeds given that she incurred them unreasonably as a trustee.[8] On 6 September 2024, the Judge issued a minute amending the directions so that costs would not be deducted from the Conroy Trust’s share of the sale proceeds.
[8]Trusts Act 2019, s 81.
Ms Conroy filed a notice of appeal to this Court on 4 October 2024, 41 working days out of time. Katz…

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 Conroy v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Conroy v Taylor [2025] NZCA 198
Case: [2025] NZCA 198
Decision Date: 28 May 2025 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Helen Conroy applied for an extension of time to appeal a High Court costs order made against her in relation to a property dispute. The case involves Conroy and Taylor, who jointly purchased a property in Auckland in 2006 through their respective trusts. After Taylor's death in 2010, Conroy continued to occupy the property under a licence to occupy. The trustees of the Taylor Trust applied for an order to sell the property, which was granted. The Judge ordered Conroy to vacate the property and awarded costs against her despite her legal aid status, which she is challenging on appeal. The court must determine whether to grant Conroy an extension of time to appeal the costs order, which was filed 70 working days out of time.

The legal issues before the court include whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was due to a genuine misunderstanding, whether the delay caused prejudice to the respondents, and whether the proposed appeal has merit. The court must also consider whether the award of costs against Conroy, who is on a sickness benefit, is reasonable. The court applied principles from Almond v Read to assess whether granting an extension of time would be in the interests of justice. The court found that the delay was due to a genuine misunderstanding, there was little prejudice to the respondents, and the proposed appeal had some merit. The court concluded that the award of costs against Conroy was a substantial burden, particularly given her financial situation and the fact that her residence was subject to a sale order.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time, allowing Conroy to appeal the costs order. The court found that the delay was due to a genuine misunderstanding and that the proposed appeal had some merit. The court did not make an order as to costs. This decision enables Conroy to challenge the High Court's decision on the costs order, which she argues was unreasonable given her financial circumstances and the nature of her conduct as a trustee.

Orders