In a father/son dispute, the High Court ruled Mark van Duinen could not block his father Robert’s sale of a property near Ashburton because Mark’s supposed claim to a 25 per cent share of the property was an oral agreement only.
Oral agreements for sale of land are valid, but Property Law Act rules require written evidence of a contract to sell land if court enforcement is needed.
In the High Court, father Robert said there was never any agreement to sell a share of the Ashburton property to his son; at best it was an oral agreement for his son to build him a dwelling on the property in return for wages, free board and contributions towards living expenses, he said.
Mark told the High Court he moved from Blenheim to Ashburton in late 2023 in response to his father’s suggestion the Ashburton property could be improved prior to sale with construction of a new dwelling.
He claims there was an agreement he be paid wages and get free board plus further agreement he would get a 25 per cent share of the property on completion.
Mark went as far as fencing off what he considered would become his 25 per cent share of the property.
Plans for the build went through several iterations before father and son fell out, with Mark trespassed from the property, complaining he had not been paid agreed wages for work done.
When his father later sold the property, Mark lodged a caveat on the title, blocking final settlement to enforce his claimed 25 per cent ownership share.
Associate judge Lester ruled the caveat could not remain.
Any supposed agreement for Mark’s share of the land was oral only; not enforceable.
Evidence was given of a handwritten agreement, signed only by Mark, setting out when progress payments for his wages might be paid. This written document made no mention of a 25 per cent share of the land supposedly promised him.
Mark needs to come back to court with further evidence if seeking to rely instead on the equitable doctrine of part performance, Judge Lester said.
Oral contracts for sale of land are enforceable where one party has already carried out his part of the bargain.
First: Mark must prove there was in fact an oral agreement for transfer to him of a 25 per cent share of the land, Judge Lester said.
Second: it must be proved Mark completed his part of the work as promised, such that it is inequitable for this oral agreement not to be enforced.
van Duinen v. van Duinen – High Court (21.08.26)
26.241