This case came about by appeal from the District Court, which dismissed the appellant’s claim. The appellant, Grant Parkins (Grant) declared 25% interest by way of institutional constructive trust over a property in the Marlborough Sounds (the property), which is opposed by his brothers, Steven Parkins (Steven) and Reece Parkins (Reece). Grant states that his interest arises because of his substantial contributions to the property after it was bought by his late father, Morris Parkins (Morris). The property was substantively developed after its purchase. The property had been left in equal shares to the three brothers by Morris in his will. Of note is that the terms of Morris’ will were not challenged in any way by any of the brothers. Whilst this case does not challenge the law of institutional constructive trusts, it provides a useful and instructive summary of the established law and thus adds to the institutional constructive trust narrative. Prior to considering the law, we will first provide an overview of the facts.