West v West

[2018] NZHC 2787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-002992 [2018] NZHC 2787

BETWEEN

ALLAN JACK WEST

Plaintiff

AND

GEOFFREY ALLAN WEST First Defendant

DAVID JOHN CAMERON WEST Second Defendant

THE PARTNERS OF LANGLEY TWIGG LAW

Third Defendant

Hearing:	25 October 2018 (by telephone)
Appearances:	No appearance from Plaintiff DM Kerr for First and Second Defendant
Judgment:	29 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 29 October 2018 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Bannister & von Dadelszen, Hastings. Hesketh Henry, Auckland.

DM Kerr, Napier.

Copy to:  Plaintiff

WEST v WEST [2018] NZHC 2787 [29 October 2018]

[1]      In 2014, Jack West transferred his Auckland property to his two adult sons, David and Geoffrey.  In 2016, Jack claimed the property should be returned because the transfer constituted an unconscionable bargain, and was the product of undue

influence.  In 2017, I heard—and dismissed—Jack’s claim.1   Jack has appealed to the

Court of Appeal.  He seeks a stay pending appeal.2   Geoffrey and David oppose the application. The third defendant, Langley Twigg Law, abides.

[2]      It is not clear why Jack seeks a stay.  Jack dismissed his barrister late in the

case and remains self-represented.  Jack’s submissions in support of the stay assert trial error. That, however, is a matter for the Court of Appeal.

[3]      A stay is unnecessary.  My judgment was declaratory; it did not disturb the status quo. Jack continues to live at the property. By the terms of the transfer, he may do so for as long as he wishes.  And, Jack’s potential interest remains protected by a caveat.  Geoffrey and David agree the caveat may remain in force until Jack’s appeal is determined.

[4]      The application is dismissed.

[5]      Geoffrey and David seek 2B costs.  I award them because the application was unsuccessful. And, without merit.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      West v West [2017] NZHC 3110.

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 12.  The hearing was by telephone; see Minute (No 5) of 31 August

2018. Edwards J heard another application by Jack this way earlier this month; see [2018] NZHC 2723. Jack did not answer the phone, as foreshadowed in his email to the Registry of 24 October. By email the next day, Jack said he would await the decision.