Warin v Warin

[2017] NZHC 786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-293 [2017] NZHC 786

BETWEEN

MARIAN RUTH WARIN AND

TREVOR SELWYN WARIN (by his attorney Wayne Warin)

First plaintiffs

MARIAN RUTH WARIN and

NIGEL TREVOR WARIN as trustees of the Marian R Warin Trust

Second plaintiffs

MARIAN RUTH WARIN and

NIGEL TREVOR WARIN as trustees of the Trevor S Warin Trust

Third plaintiffs

AND

COLLEEN ANNE WARIN Defendant

Hearing:	9 November 2016
Appearances:	D Vincent and P McKenzie-Bridle for the plaintiffs M E Hubble for the defendant
Judgment:	26 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Procedural matters............................................................................................................................... 4

Background......................................................................................................................................... 16

Colleen’s notice of opposition ............................................................................................................ 26

Legal principles applying to plaintiffs’ applications for summary judgment ............................... 29

The issues ............................................................................................................................................ 33

The evidence ....................................................................................................................................... 35

Mrs Warin’s first affidavit ................................................................................................................ 36

WARIN v WARIN [2017] NZHC 786 [26 April 2017]

Mr Roy-Gapper’s affirmation .......................................................................................................... 52

Colleen’s first affidavit .................................................................................................................... 55

Mrs Warin’s second affidavit ........................................................................................................... 61

Colleen’s second affidavit ................................................................................................................ 69

Submissions on issue (1).................................................................................................................. 71

Discussion and conclusions on issue (1) ......................................................................................... 81

Discussion and conclusions on issue (2) ......................................................................................... 97

Submissions on issue (3)................................................................................................................ 101

Discussion and conclusions on issue (3) ....................................................................................... 114

Discussion and conclusions on issue (4) ....................................................................................... 127

Interest .............................................................................................................................................. 128

Orders ............................................................................................................................................... 130

Schedule

[1]      The  first  plaintiffs  (Mr  and  Mrs  Warin)  are  the  elderly  parents  of  the defendant Ms Colleen Warin (Colleen).  They say that they lent Colleen a total of

$367,903.90 (plus interest), repayable upon demand, and that she has failed to meet demands for repayment made on 3 May 2012 and on 7 August 2015.   They have issued this proceeding to recover the advances, and, because they believe Colleen has no arguable defence, they have applied for summary judgment on their claims.

[2]      The  second  and  third  plaintiffs  are  the  trustees  of  the  family  Trusts established  respectively  by  Mrs  Marian  Warin  and  Mr  Trevor  Warin.    Mr  and Mrs Warin  say that  they  made  the  advances  to  their  daughter  in  their  personal capacities, but Colleen, who acknowledges that the advances were made, says that they were made by the Trusts.   The trustees of the two Trusts have accordingly joined Mr and Mrs Warin as plaintiffs in the proceeding, in case the court should find that the lenders were the trustees of the Trusts, and not Mr and Mrs Warin in their personal capacities.

[3]      The terms of the advances to Colleen were never recorded in writing, and Colleen argues that there was no agreement that they would be repayable upon demand.  She says that the understanding with her parents was that she would only

be required to repay the advances when her personal and financial position enabled her to do so.  She also challenges the validity of the demands made on 3 May 2012 and on 7 August 2015.

Procedural matters

[4]      Mr and Mrs Warin originally commenced the claim as sole plaintiffs, without the assistance of solicitors.  At that stage, Mrs Marian Warin was named as the first…