Ngaruahine Iwi Authority v Mountain View Developments and Constructions Ltd - [2025] NZHC 2123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2025-454-18

[2025] NZHC 2123

UNDER Part 19 of the High Court Rules and s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

NGARUAHINE IWI AUTHORITY

Applicant

AND

MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing (via AVL): Further submissions from respondent: Further submissions from Applicant:
18 July 2025

23 July 2025

25 July 2025

Counsel:

J W A Johnson and A Needham for Applicant R T Wilson for Respondent

Judgment:

31 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1] On 20 December 2024, the applicant, Ngaruahine Iwi Authority (the Authority) lodged a caveat over the title to the property at 41 County Drive, Hawera, Taranaki (the Property) which they co-own with the respondent Mountain View Developments and Construction Ltd (Mountain View).

[2] The Authority seeks an order under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 that the caveat not lapse, on the basis that:

NGARUAHINE IWI AUTHORITY v MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [2025] NZHC 2123 [31 July 2025]

(a)it is reasonably arguable that Mountain View holds some or all of its undivided one-half share of the Property on a resulting and/or constructive trust for the Authority; and

(b)the caveat is necessary to protect the Authority’s interest in the Property pending the hearing of its substantive claims against Mountain View.

[3] Mountain View opposes the application. It says that it is not reasonably arguable that the Authority has any interest in Mountain View’s undivided one-half share of the Property, and therefore the Authority has no caveatable interest.

[4] I note here that at the hearing, counsel for the applicant made oral submissions regarding the Supreme Court decision of Chirnside v Fay, which had not been mentioned in the applicant’s written submissions.1 Counsel for the respondent sought leave to file a further memorandum on that decision, which I granted, alongside leave for counsel for the applicant to file a memorandum in reply. I confirm that I have received those memoranda, and have considered them in making my decision.

Background

[5] The Authority is a charitable trust established to support and improve health outcomes for members of the Ngaruahine iwi. In early 2024, the Authority was exploring opportunities to develop and provide social housing solutions within the Taranaki region to meet its health and services objectives.

[6] Mountain View is a development and construction company. The sole director and shareholder of Mountain View is Ravikumar Gaddam (Mr Gaddam), who through various entities including Mountain View has been in the business of developing properties for social housing since 2012.

[7] Mr Gaddam contacted the Authority in early 2024, and the parties began discussing potential development opportunities which also included two other properties at 60 Juliet Street and 40 County Drive.

1 Chirnside v Fay [2006] NZSC 68, [2007] 1 NZLR 433.

[8] On 5 June 2024, Mr Gaddam attended an extraordinary general meeting of the Authority’s Audit and Risk Subcommittee, at…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ngaruahine Iwi Authority v Mountain View Developments and Co... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2123
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ngaruahine Iwi Authority (the Authority), applied for an order under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 that a caveat lodged over the title to property at 41 County Drive, Hawera, Taranaki (the Property) not lapse. The Authority sought the order on the basis that it was reasonably arguable that Mountain View Developments and Constructions Ltd (Mountain View) held some or all of its undivided one-half share of the Property on a resulting and/or constructive trust for the Authority, and the caveat was necessary to protect the Authority’s interest in the Property pending the hearing of its substantive claims against Mountain View. Mountain View opposed the application, saying that it was not reasonably arguable that the Authority had any interest in Mountain View’s undivided one-half share of the Property, and therefore the Authority had no caveatable interest. The court found that the Authority had a reasonably arguable case for a resulting trust, and that the Authority would benefit from continuance of the caveat. The Authority’s application was granted, conditional upon the Authority filing and serving proceedings for its substantive claim within 20 working days of the date of the judgment and progressing those proceedings diligently and with all reasonable speed. As the successful party, the Authority was entitled to costs.

Orders