Singh v Singh - [2018] NZHC 2506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2017-470-000100

[2018] NZHC 2506

BETWEEN
GURMINDER SINGH

First Plaintiff

RUPINDER KAUR
Second Plaintiff

AND

HARVINDER SINGH

First Defendant

JASPAL KAUR

Second Defendant

Hearing: 20–21 August 2018

Appearances:

J Delaney for Plaintiffs

R E Kettelwell and M A Urquhart for Defendants

Judgment:

25 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

SINGH v SINGH [2018] NZHC 2506 [25 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] This case concerns a rental property in Tauranga. The defendants, Harvinder Singh (Harvinder) and Jaspal Kaur (Jaspal) are the registered proprietors.1 The plaintiffs, Gurminder Singh (Gary) and Rupinder Kaur (Rupinder) say that they contributed 50 per cent of the equity and have contributed to the mortgage repayments and other outgoings, with the result that Harvinder and Jaspal hold it, as to 50 per cent, on a resulting trust for them. Harvinder and Jaspal deny this; they say that they paid for the property entirely and have met the outgoings themselves.

[2] The only issue is factual; there is no disagreement that if Gary and Rupinder contributed to the purchase Harvinder and Jaspal will hold the property on trust for them as to 50 per cent of its value. The relevant principles are those stated by Lord Brown-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council:2
… A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of a property which is vested either in B alone or in the joint names of A and B, there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B: the money or property is held on trust for A (if he is the sole provider of the money) or in the case of a joint purchase by A and B in shares proportionate to their contributions.

[3] Those principles were applied by the Court of Appeal in Chang v Lee, in which the Court said:3

All that is required, where the terms of the advance are not agreed, is to apply the presumption of equitable ownership in the acquired property. The settled principle applies that where the money to purchase the property has been provided by two persons for that very purpose the property is held in proportion to the funds provided.

1      Given the commonality in their names the parties referred to one another by their first names and, for clarity, I do likewise.
2      Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC669 (HL) at 708.
3      Chang v Lee [2017] NZCA 308, [2017] NZAR 1223 at [27].

The purchase of the property

Background to the purchase

[4] It is convenient to record some contextual facts first. The parties are all part of the same Sikh community in Tauranga and are related in the sense that Gary is Jaspal’s brother. In the past, the couples were on good terms but since 2016 there has been a rift between them…

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 Singh v Singh

Details

AGLC: Singh v Singh [2018] NZHC 2506
Case: [2018] NZHC 2506
Decision Date: 25 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Singh involved a dispute over the ownership of a rental property in Tauranga, New Zealand. The plaintiffs, Gurminder Singh and Rupinder Kaur, claimed that they contributed 50% of the equity towards the purchase of the property and that they should be recognized as co-owners. The defendants, Harvinder Singh and Jaspal Kaur, who are the registered proprietors of the property, denied these claims. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had indeed contributed to the purchase of the property and, if so, whether this entitled them to a 50% interest in the property.

The court examined the evidence regarding the funding of the property. The plaintiffs provided detailed accounts of cash contributions they made towards the purchase, supported by bank statements and witness testimony. They argued that the second $50,000 payment was made by them and not by the defendants as claimed. The defendants, on the other hand, presented evidence of their own financial contributions, including redeemed Bonus Bonds. The court found that the plaintiffs' account was more consistent with the available evidence and the known chronology of events. Notably, the court highlighted the implausibility of the defendants' explanation regarding the use of certain funds and the timing of bank deposits.

In terms of ongoing contributions, the court also considered the evidence regarding mortgage repayments and other outgoings. The plaintiffs provided evidence of payments made from their business account, which the defendants accepted were for mortgage repayments on the property. The court concluded that it was not plausible that the defendants had funded the property entirely themselves, both in terms of the initial equity and the ongoing mortgage repayments.

Based on these findings, the court declared that the defendants hold a half-interest in the property on a resulting trust for the plaintiffs. The issue of costs was to be addressed through subsequent memoranda.

Orders