Taru v Taru

[2020] NZHC 3370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV 2020-454-70

[2020] NZHC 3370

UNDER

the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, Property Law Act 2007 and Trustees Act 1965

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for orders under s 73 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 24 Property Law Act 2007, Trustees Act 1965 and rr 7.43-7.48, 7.53 and 7.54 of the High

Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

MAUREEN MARGARET TARU

Plaintiff

AND

HAYLEYMAY TARU

Defendant

Teleconference:	16 December 2020 at 4.15 pm
Counsel:	M R Duston for Plaintiff K R Smith for Defendant
Judgment:	16 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]                 The plaintiff, Maureen Taru, is the mother of Hayleymay Taru, the defendant. Maureen applies for urgent injunctive relief relating to the house in which she lives. She seeks that relief because she understands that Hayleymay has listed the property for sale.

[2]                 Up until 3 November 2017, Maureen owned the property. On that date, the property was transferred to Hayleymay. Maureen contends that Hayleymay forged Maureen’s signature in effecting that transfer. She has filed a statement of claim

TARU v TARU [2020] NZHC 3370 [16 December 2020]

alleging that the transaction was fraudulent. She seeks the return of the property to her ownership. Alternatively, she seeks a declaration that the property is being held in a resulting trust for her benefit. As a further alternative, she seeks specific performance of the life interest in the property purportedly granted to her by Hayleymay.

[3]                 Mr Smith has been able to obtain instructions from Hayleymay at short notice. He advises that the property was on the market for a period but it is not on the market at present. He further advises that Hayleymay has no intention of selling it and is not intending to evict her mother, who is very ill. He says there is an issue between Maureen and Hayleymay about who owns the house. All of that aside, Hayleymay does not object to an order restraining the sale of the property until further order of the Court.

[4]                 I am satisfied there is a serious question to be tried. I am also satisfied that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo and that it is in the interests of justice to grant interim injunctive relief.

[5]                 I make an order restraining the defendant from selling the property at 25 Reid Street, Levin, to a third party until further order of the Court.

[6]Costs are reserved.

[7]                 The proceeding is to be listed for a case management conference in the first available date on or after 1 February 2021.

Mallon J