you're reading...
Acknowledgement of Debt, Gifting, Resulting trusts

No result

Lendich v Codilla  relates to an attempt to claim a beneficial interest in property sold at an undervalue where there was an agreed element of gift. The case also raises the question as to standing of directors and shareholders of a company that has been removed from the register of companies.

The issues raised by the case, which arose due to an application to sustain a caveat are set out at [9] as:

There was no dispute that almost the entirety of the purchase price of the property in question was gifted to Mr Posa prior to his death. Subsequently, Mr Lendich formed the view that he, wishing to re-purchase the property, “should not have to pay to buy back what I had paid for already and that some form of trust must apply.”

The criteria of a resulting trust were canvassed in detail. However, the fundamental point was that it was not reasonably arguable that Mr Lendich intended to retain a beneficial interest in the property.

The following discussion regarding resulting trusts at [14] to [16] did not assist Mr Lendich, but provides a helpful over-view of the relevant law:

See Resulting trust arises in contractual vacuum.


  • Lendich v Codilla [2022] NZHC 758
  • Potter v Potter [2003] 3 NZLR 145
  • Wesdeutsche Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council [1962] 2 AC 669


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: