Evans v Page - [2025] NZHC 1053

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 1053

BETWEEN
SHERILYN JAYNE EVANS

Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JOHN PAGE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2025

Counsel:

Appellant in person

C J Dellabarca for Respondent

Judgment:

6 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

Introduction and summary of decision

[1] Ms Evans has appealed against a decision of the Family Court in August 2024 which ordered the sale of two properties owned by her and her former partner,
Mr Page.1

[2] As I will go on to discuss, although the appeal was filed out of time, I am prepared to grant leave to appeal. I grant leave because the delay was not significant, the prejudice to Mr Page is limited, and the delay is at least partly explained by the fact that Ms Evans had to file the appeal herself, due to her difficulties in obtaining a grant of legal aid.

[3] The appeal was accompanied by an application to stay the sale orders. However, that application has been overtaken now that the (much delayed) appeal

1 Page v Evans [2024] NZFC 10130 [decision under appeal].

EVANS v PAGE [2025] NZHC 1053 [6 May 2025]

hearing has finally taken place, and it is unnecessary given Mr Page has not taken any steps to enforce the judgment under appeal. In those circumstances, the application has no utility, and it is dismissed.

[4] I also dismiss the appeal. I can find no error in the District Court’s decision. The Court does have sympathy for Ms Evans’ predicament, and it would clearly be in her best interests to be able to retain the status quo. However, the Court cannot countenance that status quo where Mr Page (now almost three years post-separation) would have to continue to pay all of the outgoings on the properties for a further indeterminate period until the former couple’s relationship property proceedings are finally determined and/or Ms Evans can buy him out.

[5] The position before the Family Court in August 2024 (where Ms Evans was represented by counsel) was that the parties had agreed to the sale of one of the properties (the Allington property). In respect of the other property (the Messines property), Ms Evans was seeking further time (until 31 January 2025) to confirm finance to enable her to purchase Mr Page’s share, absent which, she agreed it could then be sold. I consider the Judge was correct to find there was insufficient evidence that Ms Evans would be in a different position by that time and that Mr Page could not be expected to continue to bear the obligation of their joint outgoings. Now, several months later, in April 2025, the position has not changed, and I agree with the Family Court that Mr Page should be able to move on.

Background

The parties and the properties

[6] Ms Evans and Mr Page were in a de facto relationship from 2004 until 23 June 2022.

[7]Mr…

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 1053
Case: [2025] NZHC 1053
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans v Page [2025] NZHC 1053 involved an appeal by Sherilyn Jayne Evans against a Family Court decision to order the sale of two properties she and her former partner, Matthew John Page, owned. The appeal was filed out of time, but the High Court granted leave to appeal, considering the delay minor, the prejudice to Page limited, and the delay partly due to Evans' difficulty in obtaining legal aid. The application to stay the sale orders was dismissed as the appeal had already been heard. The appeal was dismissed as the Court found no error in the Family Court's decision, despite sympathy for Evans' situation. The Family Court had correctly ordered the sale of the properties to allow Page to move on, given the modest relationship property pool and the risk of further devaluation if the sale was delayed.

The Court found that the Family Court Judge correctly identified the lack of evidence supporting Evans' proposal to delay the sale and correctly assessed the properties' likely loss in value. The Court rejected Evans' argument that the properties could increase in value if retained, noting that decisions cannot be based on speculation. The Court also rejected Evans' contention that the Judge mischaracterised the financial disadvantage to Page, who had contributed significantly to maintaining the properties since separation. The Court concluded that it was in the interests of justice and the parties for the sale orders to be made now, given the approaching three years since separation and the risk of continued devaluation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court's Sale Orders and directions stood, with a requirement to amend the dates for placing the properties on the market to no later than 1 July 2025. Page was entitled to costs, which the parties were asked to endeavour to agree upon, potentially deducting from Evans' share of the sale proceeds. If agreement could not be reached, Page could file a memorandum setting out the costs claimed, with a response from Evans within five working days. The Court would then determine the costs on the papers.

Orders