Webb v Teviotdale - [2023] NZHC 2921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1331

[2023] NZHC 2921

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of an application that caveat 812731090.1 not lapse under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

AVEAEL JOANN-RACHAEL WEBB

Applicant

AND

BRIAN MEREDITH TEVIOTDALE

First Respondent

ELEANOR ANNE TEVIOTDALE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 12 October 2023

Appearances:

S A McKenna for Applicant J M Skinner for Respondents

Judgment:

19 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(summary judgment)

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 October 2023 at 2.30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WEBB v TEVIOTDALE [2023] NZHC 2921 [19 October 2023]

[1] When Aveael Webb was about 20 years old, she inherited a half-share in her grandmother’s house in Eastbourne, Wellington. Aveael’s grandmother died in August 1996 and left the other half-share in the property to another of her granddaughters, Ms McGee. At that time, Aveael lived with her parents in Rotorua.

[2] The respondents are Aveael’s parents. Aveael says her father, Brian, had a sentimental attachment to the Eastbourne house and he wanted to buy Aveael’s and Ms McGee’s half-shares in the property.

[3] Aveael, while uneasy about selling a bequest, says her parents told her that they would leave the whole house to her in their wills so that it would pass back to her when they had both died, thereby giving effect to her grandmother’s wishes for her to have an interest in the Eastbourne home.

[4] Aveael’s grandmother’s estate was administered by the Public Trust. In practical terms, Aveael says she left the mechanics of the transaction to her father. Aveael says her parents worked on the basis the property had already been valued, referring to the government valuation which, at the time her grandmother died was
$321,000.00. By the time the final price was struck, a new government valuation had issued on 2 November 1996 at $370,000.00.

[5] An agreement for sale and purchase is not available. Aveael advises, having made enquiries, that the Public Trust file was destroyed long ago.

[6]Fifty per cent of the government valuation representing Aveael’s half-share was

$185,000.00. Aveael says that to the best of her recollection, she received either
$182,000.00 or $193,000.00, together with a car and a horse float which she said was worth about $5,000.00.

[7] When Brian and Eleanor came to negotiate the purchase of Ms McGee’s half-share in the Eastbourne property, a registered valuation was obtained. The valuation must have been commissioned by the Public Trust as the valuation dated 11 February 1997 is addressed to the Public Trust, Lower Hutt. The valuation was for

$425,000.00 including $5,000.00 for chattels (which included floor coverings, blinds, drapes and light fittings which would not be reflected in the government valuation).

[8] The agreement for sale and purchase in relation to Ms McGee’s half-share is dated 11 June 1997, for a purchase price of $225,000.00. The vendor…

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 Webb v Teviotdale

Details

AGLC: Webb v Teviotdale [2023] NZHC 2921
Case: [2023] NZHC 2921
Decision Date: 19 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Webb v Teviotdale is a case involving a dispute over the ownership of a property in Eastbourne, Wellington. Aveael Webb, the applicant, claims a beneficial interest in the property based on an alleged agreement with her parents, Brian and Eleanor Teviotdale, the respondents. Aveael inherited a half-share in the property from her grandmother and sold it to her parents in 1997. She now seeks to sustain a caveat she lodged against the property, arguing that she retains a beneficial interest under a resulting trust.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the nature of the agreement between Aveael and her parents and whether Aveael has established a reasonably arguable case for the interest claimed in the caveat. The court had to determine if Aveael had a contractual agreement for a testamentary promise or if a resulting trust was created when she sold her half-share to her parents.

The court found that Aveael had not established a reasonably arguable case for the interest claimed in the caveat. The court held that Aveael's evidence indicated an expectation of receiving the property as part of her inheritance rather than an entitlement to do so. The court also found that the claim was more akin to a contractual promise, which does not give rise to a resulting trust over the property. Consequently, Aveael's application to sustain her caveat was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Aveael’s application to sustain her caveat is dismissed, and costs follow the event on a 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. The court recommended that the parties reflect on the fact that the positions reached at the end of the hearing are effectively the same, suggesting a potential resolution that satisfies Aveael's expectations.

Orders