Reid v Castleton-Reid - [2018] NZHC 782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003009

[2018] NZHC 782

BETWEEN
ROSS RONAYNE REID

Plaintiff

AND

BARRY ROSS LAURENCE CASTLETON- REID

Defendant

Hearing: 12-15 and 22 February 2017

Appearances:

S Abdale for the Plaintiff

M J Matthew for the Defendant

Judgment

24 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2018 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Clive Gardner Law, Tauranga
Rennie Cox, Auckland

Counsel: S Abdale, Auckland

REID v CASTLETON-REID [2018] NZHC 782 [24 April 2018]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Ross Reid, is the father of the defendant, Barry Castleton-Reid. Mr Reid seeks various equitable remedies against Mr Castleton-Reid in relation to
$1,700,000 which Mr Reid deposited into a share trading account in Mr Castleton-Reid’s name in 2009. Mr Reid says that the agreement with his son was that Mr Castleton-Reid was simply to be the nominee owner of shares purchased with the $1,700,000.

[2]Mr Castleton-Reid, on the other hand, says that his father gifted him the money.

[3] The statement of claim contains three causes of action, namely breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust and restitution.

[4] As well as disputing his father’s claim, Mr Castleton-Reid pleads three affirmative defences, namely abuse of process, estoppel and change of position.

The main issue

[5] The main issue arises from a discussion between father and son in March 2009 which resulted in Mr Castleton-Reid opening a share trading account with ABN AMRO Craigs Ltd (Craigs). The key considerations in this case are the terms on which Mr Reid paid the money into the share trading account; and whether Mr Reid’s share trading activities through Craigs, again in the name of Mr Castleton-Reid, were for the benefit of Mr Castleton-Reid, or whether Mr Reid retained the beneficial interest in the money and the proceeds of investments.

[6]All causes of action depend on a determination of these issues.

[7] There is a preliminary issue, namely the character of the $1,700,000 before Mr Reid deposited it into the share trading account in his son’s name. I will address that issue after setting out the overall background.

Background

Mrs Reid’s will

[8] Mr Castleton-Reid was the principal beneficiary under his mother’s will and codicil to that will dated 1 October 2002 and 3 November 2008 respectively. Mr Castleton-Reid’s mother, Esme Reid, died on 22 November 2008. Probate was granted on 30 June 2009 and Mr Reid was the executor. He did not benefit under his wife’s will.

[9] Under the will, Mr Castleton-Reid’s sister, Dee-Ann Castleton-Reid,1 received furniture, books, jewellery and other chattels, as well as the right to live in the principal residence owned by Mrs Reid at the date of her death. In the event that Dee-Ann did not wish to live in that residence, it was then to be conveyed to Mr Castleton-Reid.

[10] The principal residence was the family home…

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 Reid v Castleton-Reid

Details

AGLC: Reid v Castleton-Reid [2018] NZHC 782
Case: [2018] NZHC 782
Decision Date: 24 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Reid v Castleton-Reid, the plaintiff, Ross Ronayne Reid, sought various equitable remedies against his son, Barry Ross Laurence Castleton-Reid, in relation to $1,700,000 deposited into a share trading account in his son’s name. Mr Reid claimed that the agreement was that his son would be the nominee owner of shares purchased with the money, while Mr Castleton-Reid maintained that his father had gifted him the money. The court had to determine whether there was an agreement for Mr Castleton-Reid to act as nominee for Mr Reid, or whether Mr Reid had gifted the money to his son.

The court found that Mr Reid had not established that there was an agreement for his son to act as a nominee, and that all the money deposited into the share trading account was intended to be a gift to Mr Castleton-Reid. The court based this finding on the evidence presented, including Mr Reid’s inconsistent statements, his tendency to make untrue statements, and the lack of evidence to support his claim that his son was merely acting as a nominee.

As a result, all three causes of action brought by Mr Reid – breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and restitution – failed. The court dismissed Mr Reid’s claims and entered judgment in favour of Mr Castleton-Reid. The court also awarded costs to Mr Castleton-Reid and encouraged the parties to agree on the costs.

Orders