[1] The plaintiff is a daughter of Raukawa Nora Hurihanganui (the deceased) and the executrix and administratrix of the deceased’s estate. The first defendant (the defendant) is one of the deceased’s grandchildren.

[2] The defendant held a power of attorney for the deceased. The defendant used the power of attorney to transfer property belonging to the deceased to himself. The plaintiff alleges that, in doing so, he breached the fiduciary duty he owed the deceased.

[3] The defendant subsequently transferred the property to the second defendant (his father-in-law) who at the time was the trustee of the defendant’s family trust. The second defendant in turn transferred the property to the third defendants. The third defendants are the current trustees of the defendant’s family trust.

[4] The plaintiff has discontinued the proceedings against the second and fourth defendants.

Background

[5] The deceased had 11 children. Apart from the plaintiff and a brother Nuku, who died in 2004, the deceased had the following children: Haana (Girl) Mavourneen-Pikia, Tupaea Hurihanganui, Harold Hurihanganui, Tupuku Hurihanganui, Areta Rita Hohua, Heni Jane Tuaupiki, Molly Ngahaka Hurihanganui, Mabel Tahu, and Aoreke Alice Riini.

[6] The deceased also had a number of grandchildren including the defendant and Errolena Tamawhainga (Errolena). The defendant is Haana’s son. Errolena is Molly’s daughter.

[7] The property in issue comprises two blocks of land at Reporoa on State Highway 5, Reporoa. The deceased’s home was on the first block (the home block). The second block was a bare block of land behind the home block. It was used for

grazing (the grazing block). Both were Māori freehold land until 1968. The deceased retained an interest in some further adjoining land which remained as Māori freehold.

[8] The deceased, together with Molly (and Molly’s children, including Errolena) lived in the house on the home block for several years. The defendant also spent time there with the deceased and was, partly at least, brought up by her.

[9] From 1993 (when she was in her late sixties) until 2000 (when she was in her mid to late seventies), the deceased went to Australia and lived in Brisbane with Haana, the defendant’s mother.…

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 Lines v Pikia

Details

AGLC: Lines v Pikia [2013] NZHC 503
Case: [2013] NZHC 503
Decision Date: 15 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lines v Pikia involves a dispute over the transfer of property by a power of attorney. The plaintiff, Raimapaha Lines, the daughter and administrator of the estate of Raukawa Nora Hurihanganui, claims that the first defendant, Roger Haar Charles Pikia, used his power of attorney to transfer property belonging to the deceased to himself without her informed and effective consent, thereby breaching the fiduciary duty he owed her. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand and decided by Venning J on 15 March 2013. The key issues were whether the defendant transferred the property with the deceased’s knowledge and consent, and if not, whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation, estoppel, or laches. The court found that the defendant breached his fiduciary duty by transferring the property to himself without the deceased’s consent. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments based on limitation, estoppel, and laches. The court ordered the defendant to account for the value of the property to the plaintiff, with the amount determined by a July 2011 valuation of $438,000. The court also ordered an accounting to determine the rental income received by the defendant or his family trust, with judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for that sum. The court declined to award exemplary damages and interest, taking into account the orders made. The plaintiff was awarded costs on a 2B basis, with credit to the defendants for the wasted costs of an earlier vacated fixture.

The court's decision underscores the importance of fiduciary duties and the need for clear and informed consent in the exercise of powers of attorney. The case also highlights the court's approach to equitable relief, including constructive trusts and accounting, in cases of breach of fiduciary duty. The outcome ensures that the plaintiff, as the deceased's representative, can recover the value of the property and any rental income received by the defendant in breach of his fiduciary obligations.

Orders