Evans v Page - [2025] NZHC 1810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-604 [2025] NZHC 1810

BETWEEN SHERILYN JAYNE EVANS
Appellant

AND MATTHEW JOHN PAGE
Respondent

On the papers:

Counsel: Appellant in person
C J Dellabarca for Respondent

Judgment: 3 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Applications for leave to appeal and stay]

Introduction

[1] On 6 May 2025, I dismissed Ms Evans’ appeal against the decision of the Family Court ordering the sale of two properties co-owned by Ms Evans and her former partner, Mr Page. I ordered that the properties were to be placed on the market no later than 1 July 2025.

[2] On 5 June 2025, Ms Evans filed an application seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and for the High Court’s decision to be stayed pending determination of the application for leave to appeal, any subsequent application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, and any substantive appeal in the event leave is granted.

[3] Mr Page opposes the applications, on the basis that there was no error in the High Court’s decision, and that there are no grounds for the judgment to be stayed, with a stay only causing further prejudice to him.

EVANS v PAGE (LEAVE TO APPEAL) [2025] NZHC 1810 [3 July 2025]

[4] I provided an opportunity to Ms Evans to file submissions in support of her application to appeal and/or in response to Mr Page’s memorandum. Ms Evans says she has not been able to respond, although she also says she has sourced a lot of material but she has been unable to turn her notes into written submissions. She notes Mr Page did not file a formal notice of opposition and she has requested a transcript of the hearing of her appeal in the High Court.

The parties’ positions

[5] Ms Evans’ application contends that, in the context of her application for legal aid that remains under consideration, the manner in which the proceedings were conducted has materially disadvantaged her. As a result, she says the Court was “unable to consider potentially significant evidence, including evidence necessary for her to respond properly to points “that only came up for the first time during the Family Court hearing or decision”. She also considers the decision to be wrong, because she says there was no valid evidential basis for finding that a delay in selling the properties was likely to decrease the pool of relationship property.

[6] Ms Evans also says that staying the enforcement of the judgment is necessary because sale of the properties would render nugatory the appeal for which leave is sought.

[7] Mr Dellabarca, for Mr Page, submits that the question of legal aid is irrelevant. He observes Ms Evans had known for some time that the hearing of her appeal needed to proceed either with or without a grant of legal aid. He notes Isac J’s comments in the lead up to the appeal, and…

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 Evans v Page

Details

AGLC: Evans v Page [2025] NZHC 1810
Case: [2025] NZHC 1810
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Evans v Page involved an appeal by Ms Sherilyn Jayne Evans against the Family Court's decision to order the sale of two co-owned properties. Mr Matthew John Page, Ms Evans' former partner, opposed the appeal. Ms Evans sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and requested a stay of the High Court's decision pending the appeal, but Mr Page opposed both applications.

The court needed to determine whether Ms Evans' appeal raised questions of law or fact significant enough to warrant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the court had to decide whether a stay should be granted to prevent the enforcement of the High Court's decision until the appeal was determined.

The court found that Ms Evans had ample opportunity to secure legal aid and prepare for the appeal, despite her unsuccessful applications. The court also noted that Ms Evans' appeal primarily raised questions of fact, which are generally not considered significant enough to justify a further appeal. The court concluded that the appeal did not involve matters of public interest or novel points of law, and that granting leave would not likely change the outcome. Regarding the stay application, although the court acknowledged that the enforcement of the judgment would render the appeal nugatory, it found that Mr Page would be prejudiced by a stay, given the prolonged nature of the dispute and the costs he had already incurred. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay against granting a stay.

The court declined both applications for leave to appeal and for a stay of enforcement.

Orders