Steele v Dallas - [2018] NZHC 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2018-463-000023

[2018] NZHC 2184

BETWEEN
ANTHONY JAMES STEELE

Applicant

AND

VALERIE DALLAS and ROBERT RALPH DALLAS

Defendant

Hearing: 22 May 2018

Appearances:

F Wood for the Applicant

J Hosking for the Defendants

Judgment:

28 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SARGISSON

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2018 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Rodgers & Co, Rotorua Tompkins Wake, Rotorua

J Hosking, Rotorua

STEELE v DALLAS [2018] NZHC 2184 [28 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] At issue is a caveat lodged by the applicant, Anthony Steele, over a property at Te Ngae Road, Rotorua.

[2] Mr Steele applies to sustain the caveat pursuant to s 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952. His application is opposed by Valerie and Robert Dallas, the parents of Mr Steele’s wife, Keri Steele — though the Steeles are now separated, and Mrs Steele has taken no part in these proceedings.

[3] The central question is whether Mr Steele has a caveatable interest in the property as beneficiary of a constructive trust. Mr Steele’s claim — made in reliance on the principles established in Lankow v Rose1 and Wakenshaw v Wakenshaw2 — is that he has contributed to the property, and has a reasonable expectation of an interest in the property that equity must recognise.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded Mr Steele has made out a reasonably arguable case for the interest he claims.

Background

[5] It is not disputed the Dallases purchased the property in their own names in November 2012. They purchased the property for $172,000, with 100 per cent financing from Westpac. Their intention was for the Steeles — in financial strife at that time and needing accommodation — to live in the property with their two children, in exchange for making weekly payments towards the mortgage, insurance and outgoings.

[6] Mr Steele’s position is there were oral discussions, beginning before the purchase of the property, culminating in an oral agreement which he describes in the following terms:

[The Dallases] agreed we could live [in the property] long term until such time as we are able to transfer the property into our names. Alternatively if we wanted the property to be sold sometime in the future, we would receive the

1 Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277 (CA).
2 Wakenshaw v Wakenshaw [2017] NZCA 252.

net proceeds from sale which would provide some equity we could put towards another house. So any increase in the value of the Property over time would be owned by [Mrs Steele] and me.

The underlying purpose of the agreement was so that we had a roof over our heads when we were in this precarious financial situation, and as long as there was no cost to the [Dallases], they were prepared to have the property registered…

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 Steele v Dallas

Details

AGLC: Steele v Dallas [2018] NZHC 2184
Case: [2018] NZHC 2184
Decision Date: 28 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a caveat lodged by Anthony Steele over a property in Rotorua, which he sought to sustain on the basis of a claimed beneficial interest in the property under a constructive trust. The defendants, Valerie and Robert Dallas, opposed the application. The central issue was whether Mr Steele had a caveatable interest in the property as a beneficiary of a constructive trust. The court considered whether Mr Steele had established a reasonably arguable case for the interest he claimed, and whether the caveat could be sustained. The court found Mr Steele's pleading was beset by troubling ambiguities and did not establish a contractual right to continued residency or ownership of the property. Even if Mr Steele could establish his claimed contractual right, the other factors required to establish a constructive trust were not met on the evidence before the court. The court found Mr Steele had not made out a reasonably arguable case for the interest he claimed. Accordingly, the caveat was allowed to lapse and the defendants were entitled to costs on a 2B basis unless the parties could otherwise agree.

The final orders were that the caveat numbered 10879011.1 lodged against the property located at 519 Te Ngae Road, Owhata, Rotorua be allowed to lapse. The defendants were entitled to costs from Mr Steele on a 2B basis unless the parties could otherwise agree. If the parties could not agree on costs, they were to file and serve on each other short memoranda setting out their costs contentions.

Orders