Barry v Harris - [2025] NZHC 2340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-833

[2025] NZHC 2340

UNDER the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for an order under s 339

BETWEEN

CAMPBELL NICHOLAS BARRY LAURA JANE BARRY

Plaintiffs

AND

ERNEST JOHN HARRIS

First Defendant

DEBRA ANN HARRIS

Second Defendant

Hearing: 25 June 2025

Counsel:

G Dewar and T Moore for Plaintiffs First Defendant in person (via VMR) Second Defendant in person

Judgment:

19 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

What this decision is about

[1] In 2019 Campbell and Laura Barry bought a property with Laura’s parents, Ernest (John) and Debra Harris, with each couple holding a half share as tenants in common in equal shares.1 According to the Barrys and John, they did so with the common purpose of sharing a permanent home. Debra believes, however, that the Barrys took advantage of her and John. John separated from Debra in 2022. He reached an agreement with Debra that he would buy her share in the property, but she

1 I refer to the parties by their first names in this decision for ease of reference.

BARRY v HARRIS [2025] NZHC 2340 [19 August 2025]

promptly resiled from that agreement. John is now living and working overseas, and Debra is living in a second house that they built on the property. Debra’s relationship with the Barrys has now broken down to the extent that Campbell and Laura ask the Court for an order under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) to divide the property. In their statement of claim they sought the property to be divided, and the Harrises to sell and transfer title of their 50 per cent share to the Barrys at its current market value. However, they now ask the Court to divide the property on terms where they and John acquire Debra’s quarter share.

[2] The Barrys ask for an order because of the hardship they say is being caused to them by having to continue to co-own the property with Debra. Debra does not want to sell her share and she does not want to move. She says moving would cause her hardship. She says that the Barrys do not need to see her or have anything to do with her. John supports the Barrys’ application. Although he is named as a defendant in this proceeding, it is apparent that the intention is for him to retain his quarter share in the property.

[3] The principal question for the Court in this matter is whether the hardship that would be caused to the Barrys if the order was refused would be greater than the hardship caused to Debra if the order was made.

What this decision is not about

[4] This decision is not about fraud or corruption, unlawful building work or mistreatment of animals. Debra has made these and other allegations. Nor is it about politics, or who did what work…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barry v Harris

Details

AGLC: Barry v Harris [2025] NZHC 2340
Case: [2025] NZHC 2340
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Campbell and Laura Barry and Ernest and Debra Harris jointly purchased a property in 2019, with each couple holding a half share as tenants in common. The Barrys sought an order under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 for the property to be divided, and for the Harrises to sell and transfer title of their 50 per cent share to the Barrys at its current market value. However, they now ask the Court to divide the property on terms where they and John acquire Debra's quarter share. The principal question for the Court was whether the hardship that would be caused to the Barrys if the order was refused would be greater than the hardship caused to Debra if the order was made. The Court found that an order should be made. However, the Court also found that it was necessary to consider whether the form of the order should be based on the current valuation or whether a new valuation should be obtained. The Court directed that, within 10 working days of the date of this judgment, the parties were to file further submissions addressing these issues. The parties were also given leave to seek any further orders from the Court that were necessary to implement the order. The Barrys were entitled to costs, but the issue of costs should be determined after the issue of the form of the orders to be made was resolved.

Orders