O'Regan v Public Trust - [2016] NZHC 2084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-69 [2016] NZHC 2084

BETWEEN
BYRON OʼREGAN

Plaintiff

AND

PUBLIC TRUST First Defendant

AND

REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Second Defendant

AND

HILLS PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 1 June 2016

Appearances:

G A Paine for the Plaintiff
G Mason for the First and Third Defendants
J Burns for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

2 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] These proceedings concern the plaintiff, Mr O’Regan’s claim to a section of

Land near Samson, previously designated as Lot 322 DP13, having an area of

1,012m2 (the Land).1

1 In 2010, the land was amalgamated with adjacent land by the Environment Court and a new identifier was subsequently issued in 2011.

OʼREGAN v PUBLIC TRUST & ORS [2016] NZHC 2084 [2 September 2016]

[2] Until his death in 1939, the Land was owned by Mr William Knowles. Before then, the Land was farmed by the plaintiff’s grandfather. Since then, Mr O’Regan says he and his family have used the Land and paid the rates.

[3] In 2009, he unsuccessfully applied to the Registrar-General for Land (the second defendant) for a grant of prescriptive title. Subsequently, the Public Trust (the first defendant), as the administrator of Mr Knowles’ Estate, obtained transmission of the Land into its name, and then the Land was sold to Hills Property Holdings Ltd (the third defendant). The plaintiff seeks to undo that sale, and has levelled various claims against the three defendants to that end.

[4] The plaintiff seeks a number of far-reaching orders in his statement of claim, including orders imposing a trust on the defendants, return of rates paid to date, substantial exemplary damages, and costs. Essentially, Mr O’Regan claims that he had an interest in this Land which should have been recognised and respected, and that interest has been defeated by the actions of the first, second, and third defendants.

Defendants’ applications

[5] The first and third defendants apply for summary judgment and/or strike out against the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff’s second amended statement of claim (statement of claim), discloses no arguable causes of action. The second defendant applies for strike out on the same basis.

[6] These applications overlap and stand or fall according to similar principles.

The applicable principles

[7] Under the High Court Rules, this Court may strike out part or all of a pleading if, for relevant purposes, no reasonably arguable cause of action is
disclosed.2

2 High Court Rules, r 15.1(1)(a).

[8] The principles applicable to an application for summary judgement are well-settled, reflected by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner, summarised as follows:3

(a) Pleaded facts, whether or not admitted, are assumed to be true. (b) The cause of action or defence must be clearly untenable.
(c) The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and only in clear cases.

(d)The jurisdiction is not excluded by the need to decide difficult questions of law,…

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 O'Regan v Public Trust 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: [2016] NZHC 2084
Decision Date: 2 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In O'Regan v Public Trust & Ors, the plaintiff, Mr. O'Regan, sought to establish an interest in a parcel of land in Samson, which was subsequently amalgamated with adjacent land. Mr. O'Regan claimed that he had an interest in the land based on his family's use of it and payment of rates. He sought various orders against the Public Trust, the Registrar-General, and Hills Property Holdings Ltd. The defendants applied for summary judgment and/or strike out, arguing that the plaintiff's statement of claim disclosed no arguable causes of action. The court held that the plaintiff's claim to an equitable interest in the land was not arguable as a matter of law. The court found that the plaintiff's interest, if any, was extinguished when the Public Trust sold the land to Hills Property Holdings Ltd. The court also found that the plaintiff's claims against the Registrar-General were without merit, as the Registrar-General's actions were in accordance with the statutory framework. The court granted the defendants' applications for summary judgment and/or strike out, and reserved leave for the defendants to seek further orders and directions to effect the judgment. Costs were reserved, and the parties were directed to submit memoranda within 10 working days of the judgment should the defendants seek costs.

Orders