SMITHERAM V JOLLANDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001104

SMITHERAM V JOLLANDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-001104

Because the plaintiff consistently asserted ownership on behalf of the Elstan Number 2 Trust, produced no credible evidence that the 1 September 1999 bill of sale was implemented to vest ownership in the Elstan Trust, and the defendants relied to their detriment, the Court concluded the plaintiff (as trustee of the Elstan Trust) was not the owner of the plant and loader and summary judgment for the first, second and fourth defendants (limited to the plaintiff's capacity as trustee of the Elstan Trust) was appropriate.

Citation
openlaw-e7af5fe8_db20_4750_93e4_0b9fcdcf4948.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff (trustee of Elstan Trust): Raymond Stanley Smitheram; First Defendant: Peter Reginald Jollands; First Defendant: Catherine Jane Jollands; Second Defendant: Gomez Farms Limited; Third Defendant: George Westcott Drew; Fourth Defendant: Maxwell Thomas Kimball Gray
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application (conversion, Trespass, Detinue, Conspiracy) / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the first, second and fourth defendants limited to plaintiff's position as trustee of the Elstan Trust
Legal Topics
Conversion, Trespass, Detinue, Conspiracy to Defraud, Estoppel by Representation, Ownership of Chattels, Summary Judgment
Trusts Property Law Tort Equity Procedural Law Conversion Trespass Detinue +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Stanley Smitheram

Plaintiff (trustee of Elstan Trust)

Peter Reginald Jollands

First Defendant

Catherine Jane Jollands

First Defendant

Gomez Farms Limited

Second Defendant

George Westcott Drew

Third Defendant

Maxwell Thomas Kimball Gray

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Application (conversion, Trespass, Detinue, Conspiracy) / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff in his capacity as trustee of the Elstan Trust was the owner of the plant and loader
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff cannot succeed on any cause of action against them in respect of the Elstan Trust
  3. 3 Whether an estoppel by representation precludes the plaintiff's claim given his consistent representations that ownership was vested in the Elstan Number 2 Trust

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff consistently asserted ownership on behalf of the Elstan Number 2 Trust, produced no credible evidence that the 1 September 1999 bill of sale was implemented to vest ownership in the Elstan Trust, and the defendants relied to their detriment, the Court concluded the plaintiff (as trustee of the Elstan Trust) was not the owner of the plant and loader and summary judgment for the first, second and fourth defendants (limited to the plaintiff's capacity as trustee of the Elstan Trust) was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the first, second and fourth defendants limited to plaintiff's position as trustee of the Elstan Trust

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered in favour of the first, second and fourth defendants limited to the plaintiff's position as trustee of the Elstan Trust
  • Costs to the first, second and fourth defendants: Category 2 Band B plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar