Gatfield v Harte - [2025] NZHC 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKAORIORI ROHE

CIV-2025-435-000005

[2025] NZHC 2015

UNDER s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

An order for division of property pursuant to s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 in respect of 69 Costley Street, Carterton being the property contained in record of title WN58C/156

BETWEEN

GRACE LORRAINE GATFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

THOMAS DAVID STEPHEN HARTE

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

S E Barnes and C R T Wilson for Applicant No appearance for Defendant

Judgment:

21 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Application for urgent interim orders)

An urgent application for sale of a property

Procedural background

[1] This case was originally scheduled for a call in the Associate Judge’s Chambers List on 15 July 2025, but was removed from that list and referred to me as Duty Judge on 14 July 2025, as the applicant seeks urgent interim orders for sale of a property at 69 Costley Street, Carterton (the property) under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (the Act).

GATFIELD v HARTE [2025] NZHC 2015 [21 July 2025]

[2] I directed that an urgent telephone conference be arranged to consider the application. A teleconference was scheduled for 12.00 pm on 16 July 2025. As the defendant is self-represented and has filed a statement of defence (by email on 14 May 2025), the Registry gave the defendant notice of the teleconference by email, and made attempts to speak to him via a mobile phone number provided to the Registry by counsel for the plaintiff (but he did not answer). That mobile phone number was called at the time of the teleconference, but the defendant did not answer the call. I was satisfied that the defendant had been given notice of the teleconference and had decided not to participate. I was therefore comfortable to proceed in his absence.

[3] During the teleconference, I raised with counsel for the plaintiff, Ms Barnes, issues that I considered it would be helpful for her to address in a further memorandum. I received her further memorandum on the afternoon of 16 July 2025. I raised further issues for Ms Barnes to address in a minute issued on the morning of 17 July 2025 and I received her response on the morning of 18 July 2025.

Factual background

[4] The plaintiff and defendant were in a de facto relationship for approximately 14 years and purchased the property together in July 2018. They have one child together, a daughter born in 2013. Their relationship ended and the plaintiff moved out of the property in August 2022. The defendant remained living in the property and continues to do so. The plaintiff has been unable to make payments towards the mortgage, held by the Bank of New Zealand (BNZ), or rates or insurance, due to her financial circumstances. It does not appear to be in dispute that there are significant loan and rates…

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 Gatfield v Harte

Details

AGLC: Gatfield v Harte [2025] NZHC 2015
Case: [2025] NZHC 2015
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Grace Lorraine Gatfield sought urgent interim orders for the sale of a property at 69 Costley Street, Carterton, under section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007. The defendant, Thomas David Stephen Harte, did not participate in the proceedings. The primary legal issue was whether the court should grant the plaintiff's request for an urgent sale of the property and related orders. The court considered whether the defendant's lack of engagement warranted the Registrar signing the necessary documents on his behalf and whether the orders were necessary to prevent further financial hardship to both parties.

The court reasoned that it was appropriate to grant the urgent order for the sale of the property because the defendant agreed to the sale and the mortgage and rates arrears were accruing. The court also found that the other orders sought by the plaintiff were necessary to complete the sale and prevent further hardship. The court determined that the orders authorising the Registrar to execute documents on behalf of the defendant were appropriate given his lack of engagement. The court concluded that the orders for the payment of debts from the sale proceeds and the defendant's vacating of the property were also necessary for the sale to be completed. The court granted the plaintiff's orders, with modifications allowing the Registrar to sign on behalf of the defendant if necessary.

The court left several issues unresolved, including the distribution of net sale proceeds, the quantum of occupation rent payable by the defendant, and the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs. The court directed the matter to be called again for a teleconference to address these issues and to facilitate the sale.

Orders