Jones v Beckett - [2024] NZHC 1390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2024-488-000013

[2024] NZHC 1390

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017 and High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

VALERIE ROBYN JONES

Applicant

AND

MAURICE MIDDLETON BECKETT

Respondent

Hearing: 28 May 2024

Appearances:

B Westenra for the Applicant

No appearance by or for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 May 2024 at 3.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Wills Westenra Ltd, Whangarei

JONES v BECKETT [2024] NZHC 1390 [29 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Valerie Jones for an order that a Notice of Claim of Interest pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) over the title to the property at 17 Handley Place, Onerahi, Whangarei, not lapse. The registered owner of the property is Maurice Beckett, Ms Jones’ former de facto partner. Ms Jones registered the Notice of Claim of Interest in 2008 after she and Mr Beckett separated.

[2] On 23 February 2024 Ms Jones’ lawyers received a notice from Land Information New Zealand advising that Mr Beckett had applied to lapse the Notice of Claim of Interest.

[3] Ms Jones applies for an order that her Notice of Claim of Interest not lapse so that her claimed interest in the property is protected.

[4]Mr Beckett was served with Ms Jones’ application on 7 March 2024.

[5] At the call of the application, Gordon J made an order adjourning the application for hearing and directing Mr Beckett to file and serve a notice of opposition and any affidavit in opposition by 22 March 2024.1 A copy of that minute was served on Mr Beckett on 9 March 2024.

[6] Mr Beckett has not filed or served a notice of opposition or affidavit. The hearing proceeded by way of formal proof.

[7] This judgment records the orders I made at the conclusion of the hearing and gives my reasons.

Legal Principles

[8] A claim to an interest pursuant to the PRA in any land subject to the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA) is deemed by s 42(1) of the PRA to be a registerable interest under the LTA. Section 42(3) of the PRA states that, subject to certain differences,

1 Minute of Gordon J, 8 March 2024.

any notice of claim “shall have effect as if it were a caveat lodged pursuant to section 138 of the Land Transfer Act 2017”.

[9] The principles relevant to an application to sustain a caveat are well-established. The onus is on the claimant to show that they have a reasonably arguable case for the interest claimed.2 Even if a reasonably arguable case to sustain the relevant interest is established, the court may nevertheless make an order for removal where it is satisfied that removal would not prejudice the claimant’s interest.3 These principles apply equally to an application to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Beckett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 1390
Decision Date: 29 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Valerie Robyn Jones applied to the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry, to prevent a Notice of Claim of Interest registered under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 from lapsing over the property at 17 Handley Place, Onerahi, Whangarei. The property is owned by Maurice Middleton Beckett, who was Ms Jones' former de facto partner. The application followed Beckett's request to lapse the Notice of Claim of Interest, which Jones had registered in 2008 after their separation.

The court had to determine whether Jones had a reasonably arguable interest in the property as relationship property, thereby justifying the maintenance of the Notice of Claim of Interest. The court considered the Separation and Relationship Property Agreement signed by the parties in 2007, which designated 17 Handley Place as their family home and relationship property. The court concluded that Jones had a reasonably arguable case for her interest in the property to continue, as she had not received the second payment agreed upon in the Agreement.

Following the assessment, the court ordered that the Notice of Claim of Interest should not lapse, thereby protecting Jones' interest in the property. The court also ordered Beckett to pay Jones' costs, amounting to $5,721.00, due to Beckett's decision to proceed with his application despite having the opportunity to withdraw it before Jones filed her application.

Orders