Tauevihi v Manukia - [2024] NZHC 1192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1281

[2024] NZHC 1192

BETWEEN
JOYCELYN TAUEVIHI as Executor of the Estate of TAONEFOOU FALESIMA

Plaintiff

AND

JARED JUNIOR MANUKIA and TAPUAKI MANUKIA

First Defendants

JARED JUNIOR MANUKIA and

TAPUAKI MANUKIA as Trustees of the MANUKIA FAMILY TRUST

Second Defendants

TO’OTO’O TO’OALA
Third Defendant (struck out by consent)

KIWIBANK LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

TAVITA FESOLA’I

Fifth Defendant

Hearing: 8 May 2024

Appearances:

J A Clark for Plaintiff

Judgment:

14 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 May 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
…………………………………

TAUEVIHI v MANUKIA [2024] NZHC 1192 [14 May 2024]

[1] This is a claim brought by the Estate of Taonefoou Falesima against Jared Manukia and Tapuaki Manukia for undue influence. The Estate claims that Mrs Falesima was unduly influenced to part with her half-share in a property in Ranui, Auckland (the Property). As a result of that transfer, she has suffered the loss of the beneficial interest of a half-share of the Property. Judgment is sought in the sum of $288,830. Jared and Tapuaki Manukia are defendants in two different capacities. They are named as first defendants in their personal capacity, and they are named as second defendants in their capacity as trustees of the Manukia Family Trust.

[2] The claim against the third defendant has been struck out by consent. The plaintiff does not seek any separate orders as against the fourth and fifth defendants in the event that relief is granted against the first and second defendants.

[3] The first and second defendants have not taken any steps in this proceeding. On 28 July 2023, Associate Judge Taylor granted orders permitting substituted service by sending the relevant documents to the last known email addresses of the defendants, and to Jared Manukia’s sister, and by sending messages on social media accounts of the first and second defendants. An affidavit of service has been filed to confirm those steps were taken. The defendants have not filed any documents or appeared. This hearing took place as a formal proof hearing.

Formal proof hearings

[4] Under r 15.9(4) of the High Court Rules 2016, the plaintiff must, before or at the formal proof hearing, file affidavit evidence establishing, to a judge’s satisfaction, each cause of action relied on and, if damages are sought, providing sufficient information to enable the judge to calculate and fix the damages.

[5] The plaintiff is only required to prove a cause of action so far as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to engage with any matters of affirmative defences, set-off or counterclaim.1

1 Ferreira v Stockinger [2015] NZHC 2916 at [36].

Factual background

[6] Mrs Falesima purchased the Property in 1979, when she was 32 years old. She had five children whom she supported as a single parent. She was a…

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 Tauevihi v Manukia

Details

AGLC: Tauevihi v Manukia [2024] NZHC 1192
Case: [2024] NZHC 1192
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a claim brought by the estate of Taonefoou Falesima against Jared Junior Manukia and Tapuaki Manukia, alleging undue influence in a property transaction. The plaintiff, as the executor of Mrs Falesima's estate, seeks judgment against the defendants for $288,830, claiming that Mrs Falesima was unduly influenced to transfer her half-share in a property in Ranui, Auckland, resulting in the loss of her beneficial interest. The defendants are sued in both their personal capacities and as trustees of the Manukia Family Trust.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established undue influence on the part of the defendants, which would warrant the setting aside of the impugned transaction and the provision of restitution or, in this case, monetary compensation. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Falesima's free will was overborne by the defendants, leading to the transfer of her half-share in the property into the trust controlled by the defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff had successfully discharged the burden of proof for undue influence. The relationship between Mrs Falesima and the defendants, characterized by a high degree of trust and confidence, along with the lack of independent legal advice, established a presumption of undue influence. The court noted that Mrs Falesima's age, health issues, financial dependency on the defendants, and the absence of independent advice made her vulnerable to undue influence. The court concluded that the transaction called for an explanation and that there was no evidence rebutting the presumption of undue influence. As the transaction could not be reversed due to the property's sale to a third party, the court awarded monetary compensation of $288,830, calculated based on the value of Mrs Falesima's half-share in the property at the time of sale.

The court awarded judgment against the first and second defendants in the sum of $288,830. The court expected that the plaintiff would execute this judgment against the proceeds of the mortgagee sale from the property, which were currently held on trust by the District Court. No costs or disbursements were sought as counsel acted pro bono and a fee waiver was granted for hearing fees.

Orders