Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 8 May 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2012-404-5560 [2014] NZHC 766
BETWEEN
|
TEAROA TEINAKORE KAINUKU
Plaintiff
|
AND
|
PUNA LOVENE HOPE SMITH and ESTATE OF JOHN DANIEL GREENE First
Defendants
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Defendant
|
Hearing:
|
14 April 2014
|
Appearances:
|
M McFarland for plaintiff
No appearance for defendants
|
Judgment:
|
14 April 2014
|
(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on formal
proof]
KAINUKU v SMITH [2014] NZHC 766 [14 April
2014]
[1] The first-named first defendant, Ms Puna Smith, and her late
husband, John Daniel Greene, are the registered proprietors
of two properties
situated at 20 Tindall Crescent, Otara and 26 Rapson Road, Otara
respectively.
[2] In this proceeding Mr Kainuku seeks declarations that they hold
title to both properties on trust for him. He also seeks
an order directing
the transfer of those properties to him. Neither defendant has taken steps to
defend the proceeding. For that
reason the hearing has proceeded today by
way of formal proof based on affidavits previously filed.
[3] Mr Kainuku was formerly the owner of 20 Tindall Crescent. On 11
April
2008, he entered into an agreement to sell that property to the defendants
for the sum of $270,000. Ms Smith signed the agreement
on Mr Kainuku’s
behalf as vendor using a power of attorney that she evidently held at that time.
Mr Kainuku himself was unable
to deal with these issues because he was at that
time serving a sentence of imprisonment.
[4] After Mr Kainuku was released from prison, he entered into an
agreement to purchase the property at 26 Rapson Road, Otara.
He nominated the
defendants to take title to that property notwithstanding the fact that they did
not contribute to the purchase
of it. Mr Kainuku provided the deposit and
obtained funding from the Westpac Banking Corporation to finance the balance of
the
purchase.
[5] On 3 October 2012, after Mr Greene’s death, Ms Smith and Mr
Kainuku entered into a deed in which they set out their
agreement as to the
situation relating to both properties. The operative provisions of the deed were
as follows:
registered
against the titles to the properties will be discharged on settlement.
3. Puna undertakes to forthwith take all steps necessary to obtain
letters of administration of her late husband’s estate
so that all
necessary documents can be executed by her late husband’s administrator to
give effect to this deed.
4. Neither party has any further claim against the other arising out of
the transfer of the properties to Puna and her
late husband, or their
transfer to Tearoa or his nominee pursuant to this deed.
5. Costs in the proceedings are to lie where they fall.
[6] Despite executing the deed, Ms Smith has taken no steps to obtain
letters of administration of her late husband’s
estate and has taken no
other steps to effect the transfer of the properties into Mr Kainuku’s
name. For that reason it has
been necessary for Mr Kainuku to seek the
assistance of the Court.
[7] Given the terms of the deed dated 3 October 2012, I have no doubt
that Ms Smith and her late husband held the property on
trust for Mr Kainuku.
On that basis, I make the declaration sought by Mr Kainuku in his first amended
statement of claim. I also
make an order directing the transfer of both
properties into Mr Kainuku’s name. In the event that Ms Smith fails to
sign all
documents necessary to effect these transfers within seven days of
being asked to do so, I direct that the Registrar of the High
Court at Auckland
is to sign any documents necessary to complete the transfer of the properties
into Mr Kainuku’s name.
Costs
[8] Mr Kainuku is entitled to an award of costs against Ms Smith. Those costs are to be calculated on a Category 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by
the Registrar.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Law & Associates, Manukau City
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/766.html