Stills v McCormack - [2025] NZHC 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-463

[2025] NZHC 2023

BETWEEN
ANDREW EDWARD STILLS and MICHAEL FRANCIS STILLS and JULIAN DOUGLAS STILLS

Appellants

AND

ROBERT JAMES LOUIS MCCORMACK and ELIZABETH ROBYN MCCORMACK

Respondents

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Appearances:

G K Riach for Appellants

H A Evans and C S H Hillman for Respondent

Judgment:

22 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] The appellants, Andrew Stills, Michael Stills and Julian Stills (the Stills) appeal a summary judgment granted by the District Court whereby the Stills were ordered to give up possession of a property and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $60,450 (together with interest) (the Judgment).1

The Property

[2] The Judgment was obtained by Robert and Elizabeth McCormack (the McCormacks), as the owners of a property at 36D Lukes Road, Little Akaloa (the Property). The McCormacks had purchased the Property from Church Property

1 McCormack v Stills [2024] NZDC 18576 [Judgment].

STILLS v MCCORMACK [2025] NZHC 2023 [22 July 2025]

Trustees (CPT), entering the purchase agreement on 11 November 2021 and settling the purchase on 1 February 2022. The McCormacks’ registration of the title was delayed as Andrew Stills lodged a caveat against the Property’s title on 20 December 2021, leading to a proceeding in this Court in 2023 and ultimately a judgment of this Court setting aside Andrew Stills’ caveat (the Caveat Judgment).2

[3] The Property, when purchased by the McCormacks, was subject to a lease in favour of the Stills (the Lease). Members of the Stills’ family had been the lessees since 1975, periodically exercising rights of renewal. The right of renewal, in favour of the Stills, was exercised with effect from 1 April 2001 for a term of 21 years, with that term to expire on 31 March 2022.

[4] On 13 October 2021, the Stills gave CPT notice they intended to renew the Lease. It is common ground in the pleadings filed by the parties that the Stills, at that date, were in default of the terms of the Lease by reason of non-payment of rent.

[5] Before the Property was transferred to the McCormacks, Andrew Stills asserted the Stills had a first right to purchase the Property in the event of a sale, an argument ultimately rejected in August 2023 by the Caveat Judgment. The Stills, as Andrew Stills recorded in an affidavit filed in the District Court in November 2022, do not recognise the McCormacks as the owners and lessors of the Property “because they are not”.

[6] On 28 March 2022, being three days before the expiry of the term of the Lease, the McCormacks by their solicitors, Young Hunter, wrote to the Stills (the YH letter). The YH letter acknowledged that written notice to renew the Lease had been given in October 2021. A registered valuation was attached for the purposes of the rental to be paid under the renewed Lease (Colliers’ Valuation). The YH…

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 Stills v McCormack

Details

AGLC: Stills v McCormack [2025] NZHC 2023
Case: [2025] NZHC 2023
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appeal by Andrew Stills, Michael Stills, and Julian Stills against the McCormacks was heard. The Stills appealed the summary judgment granted by the District Court, which ordered them to vacate a property and pay $60,450 in damages. The McCormacks, as the property owners, obtained the judgment after the Stills failed to renew their lease, which expired in March 2022. The Stills did not pay rent and were in default of their obligations under the lease. The McCormacks denied the lease was renewed and sought possession of the property and damages for trespass.

The Stills raised several grounds of appeal, including that the District Court incorrectly held they did not have a valid defence, improperly applied the principles of summary judgment, and failed to consider their application for relief against cancellation. The Stills also argued that the valuation of the property used to determine the new rent was invalid and that there was a fraudulent purchase of the property. The Court considered these arguments and found that the Stills had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraud or invalid valuation. The Court also found that the Stills had not met their obligations under the lease and that their continued occupation of the property was trespass.

The Court concluded that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment and that the Stills' appeal was without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the Stills were ordered to pay the McCormacks' costs of the appeal. The Court found that no substantial miscarriage of justice resulted from the entry of summary judgment.

Orders