Patel v Patel - [2019] NZHC 2705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2018-404-000601

[2019] NZHC 2705

BETWEEN
PARESHKUMAR PATEL

Plaintiff

AND

PRAKASHKUMAR PATEL

Defendant

Hearing: 26-28 August & 30 August 2019

Appearances:

P Cogswell for the Plaintiff

A Kashyap and S C R Raju for the Defendant

Judgment:

22 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2019 at 2.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Duggan & Murphy, Auckland Cogswell Law, Auckland
A Kashyap, Barrister, Auckland

PATEL v PATEL [2019] NZHC 2705 [22 October 2019]

Background and issues

[1] This case concerns a dispute over the distribution of the proceeds of a development project, located at 20 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland, undertaken between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[2] The plaintiff, Mr Pareshkumar Patel, who I will refer to as Paresh, is a real estate agent and has been for over sixteen years. The defendant, Mr Prakashkumar Patel, who I will refer to as Prakash, is a courier driver. Paresh and Prakash are not related but have been acquaintances for many years.

[3] In early 2014 Prakash was looking for a property development opportunity and Paresh assisted him to locate a property. Paresh showed Prakash several possible properties, including 20 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland which was listed with the real estate agency which engaged or employed Paresh.1 20 Ashgrove Road was a residential property with an existing dwelling on the site, the land area was 1323sqm and both Paresh and Prakash thought that another dwelling could potentially be located on a vacant portion of the site and the property could then be sub-divided into two lots.

[4] On 4 May 2014 Prakash, together with his wife Jaini Patel, purchased 20 Ashgrove Road. The property was registered in their names. The purchase price was
$465,000 which Prakash borrowed from his bank on the security of their existing family home at 73 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland.

[5] Sometime in early to mid-May 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that they would jointly develop the Ashgrove Road property. It is unclear from the evidence who approached whom: Paresh says that Prakash approached him to assist in developing the property because he (Prakash) did not have and could not borrow sufficient further funds to complete the development after he had bought the property and because his job as a courier driver would make it difficult for him to deal with the day to day aspects of the development. Prakash says that Paresh approached him, offering his experience in property developments and as a land agent to assist the

1 The evidence did not cover whether Pareshkumar Patel was an employee of or contractor to the real estate agency, but his employment status is not material to the matters in issue.

development and that he (Prakash) felt obliged to consider Paresh’s involvement. In any event, both parties agree that as of…

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 Patel v Patel

Details

AGLC: Patel v Patel [2019] NZHC 2705
Case: [2019] NZHC 2705
Decision Date: 22 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from the development of a property at 20 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland, undertaken by the plaintiff Pareshkumar Patel and the defendant Prakashkumar Patel. The case raises several issues, including whether the relationship between the parties constituted a partnership or joint venture, the scope of the partnership business, the financial contributions of the parties, and the division of profits. The court found that the relationship between the parties constituted a partnership under the Partnership Act 1908, with an equal sharing of profits and losses. The court found that the partnership business involved the development and sale of all three lots at 20 Ashgrove Road. The court also found that Paresh made several financial contributions to the partnership, including $175,000 in direct advances, the relocation of a dwelling from his property at 41 Wakefield Road, Mangere, Auckland, and additional cash contributions. The court ordered that Prakash pay Paresh $252,160 for his financial contributions and that the parties confer to calculate interest payable on Paresh's advances and the total partnership profit to be distributed equally between the parties. Costs are reserved until final disposition of the matter.

Orders