Legal Research
Cases
Telford v Telford

Telford v Telford

Case [2022] NZHC 1412 16 June 2022

Constructive Trust

Resulting Trust

Contributions to Property

Equitable Estoppel

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2021-419-000054 [2022] NZHC 1412

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

Constructive trust, resulting trust, express trust

BETWEEN

WILLIAM JAMES TELFORD and EILEEN TELFORD

Plaintiffs

AND

WILLIAM JAMES TELFORD and TESSA EVE MARTIN

Defendants

Hearing: 30-31 May 2022

Counsel:

P A Depledge for Plaintiffs

M A Dempster for Defendants

Judgment:

16 June 2022

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Clyde Law, Hamilton.
McKenna King Dempster Ltd, Hamilton. P A Depledge, Hamilton.

TELFORD v TELFORD [2022] NZHC 1412 [16 June 2022]

A note to readers

[1] This judgment is written primarily for the parties. It avoids technical language when possible. As two parties share the same name—William James Telford—I use common names: Billy and Jamie. To be consistent, I use Christian names for the remaining parties.

The dispute and difficulties with its determination

[2] Billy and Eileen sue their son, Jamie, and his partner, Tessa, in relation to 629A Hakarimata Road, Ngaruawahia. I call this the property.

[3] Billy and Eileen say the property is theirs even though Jamie and Tessa are recorded as owners on the certificate of title. Billy and Eileen say Jamie and Tessa bought the property on their behalf because the bank would not lend Billy and Eileen money to buy it.

[4] Jamie and Tessa accept they bought the property on behalf of Billy and Eileen—with a significant qualification. Jamie and Tessa say they did so on the understanding all four parties would have equal shares in the property. Jamie and Tessa say it was agreed they would contribute to the property financially and otherwise in return for a half share.

[5] Billy and Eileen acknowledge Jamie has helped make the property what it is: a landscaped, four-bedroom home on 8.44 hectares. But, they say his contributions comprise not more than 10 percent of the property’s value. Jamie and Tessa say their contributions are much greater than this, in accordance with what everyone agreed when the property was bought.

[6] No one recorded in writing what was intended in relation to the property. No documents cast light on what was intended either.1 Despite this, or perhaps because of it, everyone believes strongly in the correctness of their position.

1 Save one document in relation to the deposit. I come to this later.

[7] Key events occurred years ago. The property was bought in (late) 2014. Passage of time appears to have hardened positions at the expense of memory.

[8] Other fact-finding impediments exist too. The parties filed joint affidavits: one of Billy and Eileen; a second of Jamie and Tessa; and a third of Billy and Eileen (in reply). All were couched in broad terms, with detail a casualty. A one-day trial was allocated on the assumption this…

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 Telford v Telford

Details

AGLC: Telford v Telford [2022] NZHC 1412
Case: [2022] NZHC 1412
Decision Date: 16 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Billy and Eileen sued their son Jamie and his partner Tessa in relation to a property at 629A Hakarimata Road, Ngaruawahia. Billy and Eileen claimed the property was theirs, even though Jamie and Tessa were recorded as the owners on the certificate of title. Billy and Eileen claimed Jamie and Tessa bought the property on their behalf because the bank would not lend Billy and Eileen money to buy it. Jamie and Tessa accepted they bought the property on behalf of Billy and Eileen, but on the understanding that all four parties would have equal shares in the property. Billy and Eileen acknowledged Jamie had helped make the property what it was, but they said his contributions comprised no more than 10 percent of the property’s value. Jamie and Tessa said their contributions were much greater, in accordance with what everyone agreed when the property was bought. The court had to determine the common intention of the parties in relation to the property, the parties’ contributions to the property, the extent of the plaintiffs’ interest in the property, and what relief the court should order. The court found that Billy, Eileen, Jamie, and Tessa had a common intention that Jamie and Tessa would buy the property on behalf of Billy and Eileen on two broad conditions: (a) Billy and Eileen would be the primary or majority owners; and (b) Jamie and Tessa would be the secondary or minority owners, through contribution of money and labour to the property. Billy and Eileen contributed $424,015.04 to the property, and Jamie and Tessa contributed $152,909.06. After adjustment for Jamie and Tessa’s risk associated with the first loan, their unquantified payments of rates, and their exclusion from the property, Jamie and Tessa’s contribution rounded to $160,000. This means Billy and Eileen have a 73 percent interest in the value of the property, and Jamie and Tessa have a 27 percent interest. The constructive and resulting trust causes of action succeed insofar as Billy and Eileen have a 73 percent beneficial interest in the property, and Jamie and Tessa hold the property on trust for the benefit of Billy and Eileen to the extent of this interest. Relief remains to be determined in the event agreement about it cannot be reached within a reasonable time. The Registrar is to convene a telephone conference in a month or so to address progress in relation to this matter. Costs may be a case in which they should lie where they fall, but if agreement is not reached about costs, the court will impose a timetable. This can be discussed at the telephone conference too.

Orders