Legal Research
Cases
Werder v Singh

Werder v Singh

Case [2025] NZHC 294 28 February 2025

Resulting Trust

Joint Venture

Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Estoppel

Laches

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-002160 [2025] NZHC 294

BETWEEN
IAN KEVIN WERDER

Plaintiff

AND

ROSHYN SINGH

First Defendant

RAJESHWARI SINGH

Second Defendant

ROSHYN SINGH LYONS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

Third Defendant

JAG SAI RAJ TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 August 2024

Appearances:

P McCutcheon for Plaintiff

A R Gilchrist for First and Third Defendants M Singh for Second and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

28 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 February 2025 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

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

Solicitors:Kiely Thompson Caisley, Auckland Glaister Ennor, Auckland

WERDER v SINGH [2025] NZHC 294 [28 February 2025]

Table of Contents

Para No

Background[4]

The present proceeding [19]

Issues[27]

Evidence and witness reliability [32]

Discussion of key events and documents[44]

The Calgary Street purchase and contributions up until its transfer[45]

The authenticity of the 1997 Agreement[48]

Findings on authenticity of the signatures[51]

Date of the document[55]

Provenance of the copy before the Court[57]

The 1997 Instruction [60]

The August 1997 transfer[63]

The Stoddard Road finance offer[69]

The 2000 and 2003 Documents[72]

The 2000 Document[73]

The 2003 Document[80]

Who authored the 2000 and 2003 Documents?[83]

Ms Gosai’s knowledge[87]

Significance of the 2000 and 2003 Documents[89]

The 1997 Draft Agreement [96]

The Ian-Tao Trust and associated transactions[100]

Documented Trust transactions[102]

Evidence about the Trust and its transactions[115]

Operation of the property portfolio [125]

The Family Court proceedings[131]
The dynamics in the Family Court proceedings[133] Contentions Mr Werder made from the Family Court evidence[138] Mr Werder’s conduct in the Family Court proceedings[149]

Analysis of the fiduciary duty claim arising from the 1997 Joint Venture Agreement [152]

Alleged joint venture agreement on the terms of the 1997 Agreement[153] Alleged oral terms of the joint venture agreement[156] Claim of breach of fiduciary duties arising under the 1997Agreement[166]
Resulting trust[173]
Relief[181]

Affirmative defences [183]

Laches[184]

Estoppel/accord and satisfaction[191]

Limitation[194]

Result[196]

[1] Mr Ian Werder brings claims in equity relating to events that began over a quarter of a century ago. They arise out of a complicated relationship dynamic between the three central figures in this proceeding: Mr Werder, Mr Roshyn Lyons (né Singh) and Ms Rajeshwari Gosai (also née Singh).1 Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai are the first and third defendants. The second and fourth defendants are family trusts associated with Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai respectively.

[2] Mr Werder alleges that Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai have dealt with certain properties contrary to fiduciary duties owed to him. Those duties are said to have arisen as a result of a joint venture agreement entered into by the three of them in January 1997. Alternatively, Mr Werder alleges a resulting trust that arose in August 1997 over one particular property. He seeks, among other things, an account of profits and to trace those properties or their proceeds to the second and fourth defendants. For…

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 Werder v Singh

Details

AGLC: Werder v Singh [2025] NZHC 294
Case: [2025] NZHC 294
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Werder brought claims in equity against Roshyn Singh and Rajeshwari Singh seeking an account of profits, tracing of properties and their proceeds, and declaratory relief. The claims arose out of a complicated relationship dynamic between Mr Werder, Mr Singh, and Ms Singh. Mr Werder alleged that Mr Singh and Ms Singh had dealt with certain properties contrary to fiduciary duties owed to him. The alleged duties arose from a joint venture agreement entered into by the three parties in January 1997 (the 1997 Agreement). Alternatively, Mr Werder claimed a resulting trust that arose in August 1997 over one property. The defendants denied the existence of a joint venture agreement or resulting trust. They also raised defences of limitation, the doctrine of laches, accord and satisfaction, and estoppel.

The court held that Mr Werder's claims failed at the first hurdle because he had failed to establish the existence or operation of the alleged joint venture agreement. The court found that there may have been some other arrangement relating to the properties, but no such alternative arrangement was pleaded. Additionally, Mr Werder's claims would be barred by the doctrine of laches in any event. Therefore, the court dismissed Mr Werder's claims.

Orders