Hitchcock v Murphy - [2024] NZHC 3607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-2227

[2024] NZHC 3607

IN THE MATTER OF a claim seeking an order for specific performance

BETWEEN

STEPHEN LESTER HITCHCOCK

Plaintiff

AND

SUSAN KERRIE MURPHY

Defendant

Hearing: 6 and 7 May, and 25 July 2024

Appearances:

G J Thwaite for plaintiff

K E Hogan and B J Upton for defendant

Judgment:

29 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 November 2024 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
G J Thwaite, Auckland Insight Legal, Warkworth

HITCHCOCK v MURPHY [2024] NZHC 3607 [29 November 2024]

[1] In 1971, Susan Murphy and her then husband bought just over four hectares (around 10 acres) on the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, just north of Auckland (the Property). When the marriage dissolved, she bought out her husband’s share.

[2] The Property was subdivided in September 2021, into two, similarly sized lots. The rear two hectares (or five acres, which I refer to as the Back Half) was sold to third parties in June 2022. Ms Murphy remained living in a house on the front half of the Property, nearest the road.

[3] Ms Murphy’s brother, Stephen Hitchcock, has also lived at the Property, for extended periods commencing in 2003. By 2006, he had installed (amongst other things) a Portacom temporary building on the front portion of the Back Half. At times he resided there.

[4] Mr Hitchcock says that he spent money and did work on the Property, and therefore became entitled to an interest in the Property.

[5] Ms Murphy disagrees. She says that all Mr Hitchcock is entitled to is the money that she admits she owes him. She says the amount she owes Mr Hitchcock is much less than he claims. She says his conduct has been getting in the way of him being paid.

[6] Mr Hitchcock sues in this Court. His statement of claim is notable for the array of alternative claims it presents, set out across 13 causes of action.

Mr Hitchcock’s claims

[7] The key aspects of Mr Hitchcock’s various claims to an interest in the Property can be summarised as follows:

(a)Ms Murphy created an express trust, pursuant to which she held either the two-hectare Back Half,1 or the one-hectare front portion of the

1 Twelfth cause of action.

Back Half on which Mr Hitchcock’s Portacom stood (the Portacom hectare),2 on trust for Mr Hitchcock.

(b)Ms Murphy entered a written, or an oral, contract with Mr Hitchcock, pursuant to which she was obliged to transfer either the Back Half, or the Portacom hectare, to Mr Hitchcock.3

(c)Ms Murphy and Mr Hitchcock became partners in the development of the Property, pursuant to which either the Back Half,4 or the Portacom hectare,5 was to be allocated to Mr Hitchcock.

(d)In the circumstances, Ms Murphy held the Back Half,6 or the Portacom hectare,7 on constructive trust for Mr Hitchcock.

[8]…

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 Hitchcock v Murphy

Details

AGLC: Hitchcock v Murphy [2024] NZHC 3607
Case: [2024] NZHC 3607
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hitchcock v Murphy was heard by Johnstone J in the High Court of New Zealand. Stephen Hitchcock sued Susan Murphy for an order of specific performance, claiming entitlement to an interest in the property owned by Murphy due to financial contributions and work done on the property. Murphy denied Hitchcock's claims and argued that she only owed him money, not a property interest. The court had to decide whether Hitchcock's claims of an express trust, contract, constructive trust, or partnership were valid, and if not, what monetary obligations Murphy had towards Hitchcock. Hitchcock's claims of an express trust were dismissed as Murphy's letter did not indicate a clear intention to create a trust, and there was no certainty of subject matter. Hitchcock's claims of a contract were also dismissed as there was no evidence of a binding agreement. The court found that Hitchcock's claims of a constructive trust in relation to the Back Half were valid, as Murphy had promised to pay Hitchcock $500,000 from the sale proceeds, which became unconscionable when she refused to do so. Hitchcock's claims of a partnership were dismissed as Murphy did not consider herself to be in business with Hitchcock. Finally, the court found that Murphy owed Hitchcock $500,000 from the Back Half's sale proceeds and $75,000 for loans made in 2017, with interest from 23 June 2022 until payment. Costs were to be determined on the papers if the parties could not agree.

Orders