7 Mar 2023
Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was fact specific, did not raise a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument, and did not involve an issue of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of further appeal; the lower courts correctly applied the constructive trust principles in Blumenthal v Stewart.
12 Aug 2022
On the material before the Court it is reasonably arguable that Erlon made contributions (including unpaid 50% of services and a $150,000 deposit contribution), had a reasonable expectation of a proprietary interest arising from the parties' dealings, and that it would be unconscionable for Agrotrust to retain the benefit; accordingly the caveat is supported and must not lapse pending resolution of substantive proceedings.
29 Mar 2022
Although appellant made greater early labour contributions, he failed to prove it would be unconscionable for the legal owners (the estate) to retain full legal title or to yield the 25% personal interest claimed; consequently no institutional constructive trust arose and the District Court's dismissal was correct.
19 Feb 2021
Applicants failed to establish an arguable proprietary interest in either property: the 2002 agreement did not establish an enduring severance of joint tenancy and evidence showed parties changed course; applicants' contribution evidence was vague, uncorroborated and did not support a Lankow v Rose constructive trust claim; tikanga‑based argument could not be advanced without evidential proof. Therefore caveats cannot be sustained.
19 May 2020
No constructive trust was imposed because no express common intention or sufficiently reasonable expectation existed that plaintiff would obtain a one-third proprietary interest; however plaintiff made qualifying financial contributions, expenses and substantial unpaid labour which were freely accepted and beneficial to the Trust, entitling her to restitution on quantum meruit; award fixed at NZD 163,506 plus interest at 4% p.a. from 1 January 2011 to 1 June 2017.
26 Jun 2017
On the balance of probabilities the court found that plaintiff and her husband made substantial financial contributions (regular payments and large 2012 lump sums), had a reasonable expectation of an interest as evidenced by discussions and will changes, and that the defendant should reasonably have expected to yield an interest; accordingly a constructive trust was imposed over one‑third of the property, quantified at $433,333.33.
18 Aug 2016
The Court held that the respondent's indirect and direct contributions (including household work and a $50,000 payment used for renovations) qualified as contributions to the trust property under Lankow; she had a reasonable expectation of a modest share; the trustees (or their agent) had effectively abdicated control such that the trust could not retain the benefit unconscionably; and the High Court's award of $65,000 was a justified, modest quantification of her equitable entitlement.
24 Jun 2009
The caveat cannot be removed because it is not patently clear there is no arguable equitable interest: material factual disputes exist as to both the nature and destination of funds and the extent of services, and the accountant's analysis relies on assumptions and respondent-supplied information; accordingly the applicant has retained a reasonably arguable case and the caveat must remain.
13 Aug 2007
The applicant's affidavit failed to state unequivocally that he made contributions of money and labour to the specific property subject to the caveat; absent clear proof of entitlement the Court would not allow the caveat to inure, so the application must be dismissed.