Brother seeking larger slice of family bach has ‘little prospect of success’

One of three brothers claiming he should inherit more than a third of the family bach has been refused leave to appeal for a second time.

Grant Parkins and his two brothers were given equal shares of the Oyster Bay bach in the Marlborough Sounds after their father Morris Parkins died, but Grant thought his construction work on the house should entitle him to a 50% share.

The sons were aged 23, 21 and 19 when their father bought the 49-hectare property in 1990, and Morris started to build a house there in 1993.

The High Court heard in March last year that Nelson-based builder Morris would often work on the bach as a weekend project, and that his sons would come out too, as their own jobs and families allowed.

READ MORE:
* Son loses appeal bid in Marlborough Sounds family bach dispute
* Builder’s three sons in court over who did more work on family bach
* More townhouses and apartments being built in Blenheim

Morris, who died in 2010, said in his will that his estate should be split equally between his sons.

Grant challenged that in the Nelson District Court in 2021, saying he contributed more to the property than his brothers, and should therefore be entitled to a fourth share, in addition to his equal share with his brothers, his two shares of the four then equalling half the property.

The judge disagreed. Grant appealed the decision in the High Court but the justice also disagreed with his claim.

Grant then tried to take it to the Appeal Court, but his application was dismissed in September by Justice Cooke, who said Grant’s contributions to the Oyster Bay property “did not create an expectation of an interest in the property greater than that of [Grant’s] two brothers”.

This month Grant’s second application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Justice Collins and Justice Mallon said in their decision they agreed with Justice Cooke, that Grant’s argument – that he should be the beneficiary of a constructive trust – had “little prospect of success”.

The bach was valued at $500,000 in 2018, and a lawyer for the two other brothers calculated that if Grant’s claim succeeded, his interest in the estate would increase by $83,333.

As there had been no recent valuation of the bach, Grant’s lawyer disputed this calculation, but accepted that a figure of around $100,000 would be justifiable.

Justice Collins and Justice Mallon said they were not satisfied the proposed appeal raised “a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument”.

“Nor are we satisfied that the case involves an issue of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal,” their decision said.