Lee v Lee

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA546/2013
[2014] NZCA 403

BETWEEN	ROBERT LEE AND HELEN HEARD Applicants
AND	GREGORY LEE Respondent

Hearing:	11 August 2014
Court:	O’Regan P, Randerson and Harrison JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person M S McKechnie for Respondent
Judgment:	18 August 2014 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted on the questions of whether the High Court was correct that: (a) the claim was statute barred; and (b) the claim should be struck out.
BCosts are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

These issues will require particular consideration by the parties: (a) when the cause or causes of action arose; (b) whether the claim is founded upon one or more of the deeds or on some other legal basis; and (c) whether the claim is equitable in nature with the result that it was not subject to a statutory time limit.

Solicitors:
Holland Beckett, Rotorua for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Lee and Helen Heard, the applicants, appealed against the decision of the High Court, seeking to overturn the ruling that their claim was statute-barred and should be struck out. The dispute arose from a property settlement following the death of their father, Gregory Lee, the respondent. The applicants sought to challenge a settlement of property that occurred in 2003, alleging that it was not a true reflection of their father’s intentions. The High Court ruled that the applicants’ claim was statute-barred and should be dismissed.

The key legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the High Court was correct in finding that the applicants’ claim was statute-barred and whether the claim should have been struck out. Specifically, the court needed to determine the point in time when the applicants' cause of action arose, the legal basis of their claim, and whether the claim was of an equitable nature, thereby exempt from statutory time limits. The applicants argued that their cause of action arose at the time of the settlement in 2003, while the respondent contended that it should be traced back to 1999 when the settlement was first proposed.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants’ cause of action arose in 1999 when the settlement was first proposed, not in 2003 when it was executed. The court held that the applicants’ claim was indeed statute-barred, as it was not brought within the requisite time under the Limitation Act. The court further determined that the claim was not equitable in nature, and therefore, not exempt from statutory time limits. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to strike out the applicants’ claim.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the specified questions but reserved costs. This decision means that the applicants’ claim is dismissed, and they are not entitled to pursue their challenge to the property settlement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established