Legal Research
Cases
Patterson v Patterson

Patterson v Patterson

Case [2025] NZHC 1762 30 June 2025

Contract Formation

Part Performance

Specific Performance

Unconscionable Conduct

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2024-025-000125

[2025] NZHC 1762

BETWEEN
RAYMOND DEAN PATTERSON

Plaintiff

AND

BERNARD ARTHUR PATTERSON

Defendant

Hearing: 9 April 2025, further evidence 13 June 2025

Appearances:

R G R Eagles for Plaintiff

Judgment:

30 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This is a redacted version of the judgment for publication

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 August 2025 at 2.30pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

PATTERSON v PATTERSON [2025] NZHC 1762 [30 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]The parties in this case are brothers.

[2] The plaintiff, Raymond Patterson (Raymond) seeks an order vesting ownership of a property [in Bluff] (the property) in him.

[3] The defendant, Bernard Patterson (Bernard) is the registered proprietor of the property.

[4] Raymond says, on oath, he believes the property was mistakenly transferred to Bernard solely, instead of to the two brothers jointly as had been their late grandmother’s stated intention. Consistent with that intention, Raymond later reached an oral agreement with Bernard for consideration that Bernard would assign his interest in the property to Raymond (the oral agreement). In reliance on the oral agreement, Raymond says thereafter he paid all rates related to the property and undertook and paid for maintenance.

[5]However, in fact Bernard never transferred the property to Raymond.

[6] As a result, Raymond claims Bernard holds the property as trustee for Raymond under a constructive or resulting trust in his favour. Raymond asks this Court to correct this and perfect the oral agreement, by vesting the property in him.

[7] The proceeding was personally served on Bernard. No defence was filed to the claim and Bernard has taken no step to defend it. Accordingly, it was set down to for a formal proof hearing.

[8]To determine the application I must consider the following issues:

(a)Was there an oral agreement that Bernard would transfer the property to Raymond?

(b)If so, is that agreement enforceable?

Procedural history

[9] The claim was initially filed in the District Court but subsequently transferred to this Court for determination as there was doubt whether the District Court had jurisdiction to determine the claim.

[10] At the hearing before me as Duty Judge it became apparent there was an omission within the evidence filed in support of the claim on an aspect central to the claim, as discussed below. Counsel for Raymond, Mr Eagles sought leave of the Court to address this oversight, and indicated he anticipated the lacuna in the evidence would be able to be addressed. There was no prejudice in this course. Accordingly leave was granted to file further evidence.

Background

[11] The factual background is explained in Raymond’s first affidavit in support of formal proof. The property is (now) a vacant section. Based on a recent rating notice and homes.co.nz online valuation the property is valued between $75,000 and
$100,000.

[12] Charles Patterson, the parties’ grandfather acquired the property in 1962,…

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 Patterson v Patterson

Details

AGLC: Patterson v Patterson [2025] NZHC 1762
Case: [2025] NZHC 1762
Decision Date: 30 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patterson v Patterson involved brothers Raymond and Bernard Patterson, who were disputing the ownership of a property in Bluff. Raymond, the plaintiff, claimed that the property was mistakenly transferred to Bernard in sole ownership, contrary to their late grandmother Eileen Patterson's intention that it be held jointly by both brothers. Raymond further asserted that an oral agreement existed where Bernard agreed to transfer his interest in the property to Raymond in return for financial assistance and the use of Bernard's workshop space. Bernard, the defendant, did not file a defence or take any steps to contest the claim. The court was required to determine whether an oral agreement existed between the parties and, if so, whether it was enforceable under the doctrine of part performance.

The court found that the evidence established the existence of an oral agreement between the parties. The agreement was made in 2003, when Raymond agreed to purchase an edging machine for Bernard's joinery business in exchange for Bernard assigning his interest in the property to Raymond. This agreement was made for fair and appropriate consideration, as the property was valued at approximately $1,500 at the time, while the edging machine cost around $13,000. The court also found that Raymond had sufficiently demonstrated part performance of the agreement by taking full responsibility for the payment of rates and the maintenance of the property since 2002–2003. The court concluded that Bernard's retention of the property would be unconscionable given Raymond's long-term outlay of costs and Bernard's failure to challenge Raymond's assumption of rate obligations.

As a result, the court ordered that Bernard Arthur Patterson's proprietary interest in the property at Bluff be vested in Raymond Dean Patterson. The court also directed counsel to prepare the necessary transfer documents and authorized the Registrar to sign those documents on behalf of Bernard Arthur Patterson. There was no order for costs as the plaintiff's counsel did not pursue any costs.

Orders