Paraire v Paraire – Part Mangatawa 10 (2015) 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 67 (105 WMN 67) [pdf, 213 KB]
...that could reasonably [be] held by both the Trustee owners of the property and Mr Paraire was that he held a long term right to reside in the shed. Otherwise it would have been totally unreasonable to expect Mr Paraire, a man of limited financial resources, to expend such a large amount of money on improving the shed. The law [63] In the case of Gillies v Keogh, the Court of Appeal referred to what are known as the five probanda required to be shown by a party seeking to rely upon...