IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2024-485-788
[2025] NZHC 2206
BETWEEN
JEANETTE DALGLEISH GRANTHAM and MALCOLM DAVID CAMPBELL
Applicants
AND
VALERIE MARY MOATES as executor of the estate of Margaret Elizabeth Ryan Respondent
Hearing:
2 May 2025
Appearances:
D Pine for Applicants
D Livingston for Respondent
Judgment:
7 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON
Introduction
[1] This is an application by Jeanette Grantham and Malcolm Campbell for final orders that Caveat 13090013.1 (the Caveat) against the property at 74 Ponsonby Road, Wellington (the Property), not lapse. The estate of Margaret Ryan (the Estate) is the registered proprietor of the Property.
[2] The applicants claim caveatable interests on four bases. They claim a constructive trust arising from a common intention and promissory estoppel. They also claim a testamentary promise by Margaret during her lifetime as a basis on which to sustain the Caveat. In submission, counsel also contended that allowing the Property to remain in the Estate would give rise to manifest injustice under s 55 of the
GRANTHAM v MOATES [2025] NZHC 2206 [7 August 2025]
Land Transfer Act 2017 (the Act). The applicants seek a final order that the Caveat not lapse and costs.
[3] The respondent, Valerie Moates, in her capacity as the executor of the Estate opposes the application.1 She seeks orders that the Caveat lapse in her favour. Alternatively, if it is not yet to lapse, she seeks that a condition of the Caveat is that the applicants urgently file their substantive pleadings so that the matter can be scheduled for a final and substantive hearing. She also submits that costs for the Caveat should be reserved pending the final outcome.
Background
[4] The applicants are the children of David and Ida Campbell.2 They grew up at the Property, which was built by David. Ida passed away on 8 August 1973. David married Mary Campbell (née Ryan) in 1981 and the Property was settled pursuant to the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 on 24 May 1983.
[5] Margaret (Mary’s niece) moved into the Property in approximately 1990. The applicants characterise this decision as being precipitated by Margaret having a back injury and not having a home. Evidence filed by the respondent is that Margaret was invited by David to move in, due to his health.
[6] David died in June 1994 seemingly without a will, although the applicants suggest that one exists despite it not being located. The applicants say that David had indicated that it was his intention for Mary to remain at the Property for the duration of her life, after which it would be transferred to the applicants. Their evidence is that a meeting was held with Mary and Margaret, following David’s death, affirming that belief. The respondent contends that no evidence exists supporting that the Property was intended to be transferred to the applicants and that the Property became Mary’s by right of survivorship and never formed a part…
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 Grantham v Moates
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Grantham v Moates [2025] NZHC 2206
Case
[2025] NZHC 2206
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of New Zealand heard an application by Jeanette Grantham and Malcolm Campbell for final orders that a caveat against the property at 74 Ponsonby Road, Wellington, not lapse. The estate of Margaret Ryan, represented by Valerie Moates, opposed the application. The applicants claimed a constructive trust arising from a common intention and promissory estoppel, a testamentary promise by Margaret, and manifest injustice under s 55 of the Land Transfer Act 2017. The respondent sought orders that the caveat lapse in her favour or, alternatively, that a condition be imposed that the applicants urgently file their substantive pleadings. The court found that the applicants had established a reasonably arguable case for a common intention constructive trust and promissory estoppel. The court exercised its discretion to sustain the caveat, subject to conditions regarding prompt commencement and diligent prosecution of the substantive proceeding. The order was conditional on the applicants issuing proceedings within 20 working days, agreeing an expedited timetable with counsel, and prosecuting the proceedings with due diligence. Costs were reserved pending the outcome of the substantive hearing.