Meredith v Soroka - [2019] NZHC 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-001032

[2019] NZHC 2723

UNDER Section 143, Land Transfer Act 2017 and s 42, Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER OF

an application to sustain notices of claim 11358344.1 and 11359346.1

BETWEEN

LOUISE CLARE MEREDITH

Applicant

AND

GLENN MICHAEL SOROKA

First Respondent

PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES (FLYING CROSS) LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2019

Appearances:

A J Bell and A L Norcross for Applicant D W Grove for First Respondent

No appearance for Second Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2019 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:
McVeagh Fleming, Auckland Turner Hopkins, Auckland

MEREDITH v SOROKA [2019] NZHC 2723 [24 October 2019]

Introduction

[1] The parties were in a de facto relationship for approximately 10 years from 2008 until they separated in September 2018. The applicant, Louise Meredith, continues to live in the former family home in South Auckland, together with the one son of the relationship, now aged six years.

[2] No proceedings have yet been filed in the Family Court under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). However, Ms Meredith anticipates that proceedings will be filed shortly; they are currently being drafted.

[3] In the present proceedings, Ms Meredith seeks orders under s 143(4) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA) that notices of claim that she has lodged against three separate properties pursuant to s 42 of the PRA not lapse. The three properties are:

(a)A bare bush block of land located at Klondyke Road, Onewhero/Port Waikato, registered in the name of the first respondent, Glenn Soroka, (the Port property);

(b)Bare land at Lake Terrace, Taupo, registered in the name of Mr Soroka and, at the time of the hearing, the subject of an unconditional agreement for sale and purchase with settlement to occur on 24 September 2019 (the Lake Terrace property);1 and

(c)The property at 58 Old Barn Road, Papakura, registered in the name of the second respondent, the Professional Trustee Services (Flying Cross) Ltd (the family home).

[4] Mr Soroka contends that all three properties are owned by trusts and that Ms Meredith has no beneficial interest or arguable qualifying relationship property

1 In a memorandum on behalf of the first respondent dated 2 October 2019, the Court was advised that the Lake Terrace property was settled on 24 September 2019 on the basis of an interim arrangement whereby various payments were made of the balance held pending agreement between the parties or court order. Accordingly, the parties now seek a decision as to whether the Notice of Claim was validly lodged in respect of the Lake Terrace property.

interest in any of the properties. He further contends that the Port and Lake Terrace properties were purchased by trusts associated with him many years before the relationship with Ms Meredith…

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 Meredith v Soroka

Details

AGLC: Meredith v Soroka [2019] NZHC 2723
Case: [2019] NZHC 2723
Decision Date: 24 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meredith v Soroka involved an application by Louise Meredith to sustain notices of claim she had lodged against three separate properties pursuant to s 42 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The respondents were Glenn Soroka, the registered proprietor of two of the properties, and Professional Trustee Services (Flying Cross) Limited, the registered proprietor of the third property. The central issue before the court was whether Ms Meredith had arguably legitimate claims under the PRA and whether, in the exercise of the court's discretion, the notices of claim should be sustained to protect her potential property relationship claims.

The court found that there was a reasonably arguable case for Ms Meredith having a property relationship interest in all three properties. For the Port property, the court found that either the property was the separate personal property of Mr Soroka and Ms Meredith had an arguable relationship property claim to it under s 9A of the PRA, or if the property was held on trust, she had an arguable claim to Mr Soroka’s beneficial interest. The court rejected the contention that the trusts were shams. For the family home, the court found that Mr Soroka had no authority to apply to lapse the notice of claim and thus it remained in place. For the Lake Terrace property, the court found that there was a reasonable arguable case that the property was the personal property of Mr Soroka and Ms Meredith had an arguable claim to it.

The court exercised its discretion to sustain the notices of claim in respect of all three properties to protect Ms Meredith’s potentially legitimate interests pending determination of the issues in the Family Court. The court granted Ms Meredith’s application and ordered that the notices of claim not lapse. Ms Meredith was also awarded costs on a 2B basis.

Orders