CJudgment is entered against the respondent in favour of the appellant for $511,000 plus interest under s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the sum of $214,000 from 8 October 2003 to the date of this judgment, and on the sum of $297,000 from 18 May 2007 to the date of this judgment.
DThe costs ordered in the High Court are set aside and the High Court is to determine any issue as to costs in that Court.
EThe respondent must pay costs to the appellant as for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents	Para No
Introduction	[1]
The facts in more detail	[8]
The evidence at trial	[20]
The judgment in the High Court	[25]
Legal principles	[35]
Did the Judge err in his conclusion that no trust was established?	[45]
What remedy should flow?	[60]
Conclusion	[76]
Result	[78]

Introduction

This appeal arises from an unfortunate dispute between brother and sister over land in Rotorua which the brother claims is held in trust for him by his sister. There is no dispute that the land was paid for solely by the appellant (the brother) but the title to it was registered in the name of the respondent (the sister). The brother says it was intended that the land be his and that he would be the registered owner.
Later, the land was subdivided into two sections. A townhouse was built on each and the properties were sold realising a total sale price of $511,000. The brother says he knew nothing of this until afterwards. He made no financial contribution to the subdivision or to the construction of the townhouses.
In the High Court, the brother’s claim was based on a resulting trust. His case was that a resulting trust was presumed when the land was paid for by him but registered in his sister’s name. There was nothing, the brother said, which justified the presumption being rebutted. He sought judgment for the gross proceeds of sale of the two sections. The sister filed a statement of defence denying there was a trust and asserting that the funds provided by the brother to purchase the land were a loan to her.
The brother gave evidence at the trial before Stevens J. Some members of the brother’s family gave supporting evidence. However, there was a highly unusual feature of…

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 Crampton-Smith v Crampton-Smith

Details

AGLC: Crampton-Smith v Crampton-Smith [2011] NZCA 308
Case: [2011] NZCA 308
Decision Date: 6 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns a dispute between brother and sister over land in Rotorua which the brother claimed was held in trust for him by his sister. The sister had registered the title in her name, while the brother had contributed the full purchase price. The brother had brought an action for a resulting trust. The High Court had rejected the brother's claim. The brother appealed. The appeal was allowed and judgment was entered in favour of the brother for the gross proceeds of sale of the two sections, namely $511,000, plus interest under s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the sum of $214,000 from 8 October 2003 to the date of this judgment, and on the sum of $297,000 from 18 May 2007 to the date of this judgment. The costs ordered in the High Court were set aside. The High Court was to determine the issue as to costs in that Court. The respondent was to pay costs to the appellant as for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

Orders