Meates v Topliss - [2021] NZHC 2717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CIV-2019-418-32

[2021] NZHC 2717

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER JOHN MEATES and DONNA MARIE MEATES
Plaintiff

AND

EILEEN MARIE TOPLISS

Defendant

Hearing: 9–11 August 2021

Appearances:

T J Mackenzie for Plaintiffs

A C Hughes-Johnson QC and N Reive for Defendant

Judgment:

11 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 October 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

MEATES v TOPLISS [2021] NZHC 2717 [11 October 2021]

[1] The owner of a sizeable block of land sets out to subdivide the land into two lots, planning to sell Lot 1. She obtains from the local Council resource consent to subdivide the property into Lots 1 and 2, with Lot 1 to be disposed of. The following year she signs (along with a couple) a brief document in which the couple agree to pay her $400,000 (including a $10,000 deposit) “for the purchase of her land”. A year later, after the intervention of her family, she seeks to return the deposit and asserts that she is not legally required to complete a sale of her land to the couple.

[2] The couple issue this proceeding in reliance upon the document as an enforceable contract.

[3] The owner defends the claim on the basis that she did not intend to be bound by the document, the terms of any agreement lacked certainty, the recording of the material terms of the agreement did not meet the requirements of s 24(1) Property Law Act 2007, and the agreement is not enforceable by reason of its being obtained by duress, undue influence or resulting from unconscionable dealing.

[4] The plaintiffs seek an order for specific performance. The defendant says the claim should be dismissed.

The evidence

[5]Fourteen witnesses were called:

Plaintiff ’s witnesses

(a)Donna Meates: one of the two plaintiffs, who had the dealings over Lot
1 with the defendant during 2017 and took the agreement to the defendant in December 2017 to be signed;

(b)Christopher Meates: her husband, a miner, who gave evidence as to his plans for Lot 1 and the disbursements incurred in relation to its purchase;

(c)Garry Lindbom: a character witness;

(d)Amanda Dodds: another character witness;

(e)Kelvin Clapshaw: who says the defendant told him of her sale of Lot 1 to the plaintiffs;

(f)Ryan Langridge: who negotiated to buy Lot 1 from the defendant and made a formal offer of purchase at $500,000 in January 2016, which the defendant rejected;

(g)Clarissa Turner: who saw “For Sale” signs in late 2018, made enquiries, and alerted her mother to the land; and

(h)Prue Turner: Clarissa Turner’s mother, who unsuccessfully pursued a discussion with the defendant for purchase of Lot 1;

Defendant’s witnesses

(i)Eileen Topliss: the defendant, who took steps towards subdividing her land and signed the document with the plaintiffs;

(j)Graeme Topliss: the defendant’s elder son, who gave evidence about his dealings with his…

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 Meates v Topliss

Details

AGLC: Meates v Topliss [2021] NZHC 2717
Case: [2021] NZHC 2717
Decision Date: 11 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meates v Topliss involved a claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiffs, Chris and Donna Meates, sought to enforce a contract for the purchase of a farm block of land from the defendant, Eileen Topliss. The key legal issues were whether a binding contract existed, whether the contract complied with the statutory requirement for contracts for the disposition of land to be in writing, and whether the contract was procured by duress, undue influence, or unconscionable dealing. The court found that a binding contract existed, as the document signed by the parties contained all the necessary terms, including parties, price, and the subject land. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the contract was uncertain or failed to comply with the statutory requirement for contracts for the disposition of land to be in writing. The court also dismissed the defendant's claims of duress, undue influence, and unconscionable dealing, finding that the plaintiffs' conduct was not illegitimate or exploitative. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to specifically perform the contract by completing the proposed subdivision and giving title to the subdivided lot to the plaintiffs.

Orders