Legal Research
Cases
Lange v Lange

Lange v Lange

Case [2020] NZHC 2560 30 September 2020

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-488-60

[2020] NZHC 2560

UNDER the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

IN THE MATTER

of a judgment registered pursuant to s 57 of the Act

BETWEEN

DEBRA GISELLA LANGE

Applicant

AND

TERRY CECIL LANGE

First Respondent

MARIA ANN LANGE-TUPE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2020

Appearances:

M R Walker and B B Gresson for the Applicant C J LaHatte for the Respondents

Judgment:

30 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2020 at 4:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:
Mr M R Walker and Mr B B Gresson, Todd & Walker, Queenstown Mr C J LaHatte, Wellington
Ord Legal (Respondents’ instructing solicitor), Wellington

LANGE v LANGE [2020] NZHC 2560 [30 September 2020]

[1] Ms Debra Lange commenced this proceeding seeking a sale order to enforce a judgment of the Family Court of Western Australia dated 12 June 2019 in proceedings between the same parties.1

[2]This Court issued a sale order on 12 March 2020.

[3] On 7 July 2020 the respondents applied for a stay of execution of the judgment and sale order.

[4] On 2 September 2020 the respondents also applied for leave/extension of time to oppose registration of the Western Australian judgment.

Factual background

[5] Ms Lange and the first respondent, Mr Terry Lange, commenced a relationship in 1994 and married in 1997. They had two children, born in 1997 and 1999.

[6]They separated in November 2013 and were divorced in 2016.

[7]During the marriage, they lived in a property in Lockridge, Western Australia.

[8] In 2010 Mr Lange purchased a property at 58 Jason Road (also known as 995 Oruru Road, Taipa), Kaitaia, New Zealand (the Kaitaia property).2

[9] Ms Lange commenced the Western Australian proceeding against Mr Lange in March 2014. An interim injunction was granted in relation to the Lockridge property.

[10] The Western Australian proceeding was due for trial in July 2017, but the day before trial Ms Lange applied to join Ms Maria Lange-Tupe, the adult daughter of Mr Lange and his previous partner, as second respondent. It had been disclosed earlier in 2017 that Mr Lange had transferred the Kaitaia property to Ms Lange-Tupe for
$514,633 and subsequently forgiven that debt.

1 Lange v Lange [2019] FCWA 128.
2 Lots 3, 4 and 5 DP390511 Record of Title 363200.

[11] The 2017 trial was vacated, and disclosure and timetable orders were made. Ms Lange-Tupe was joined in December 2017. The proceeding was further delayed due to Ms Lange-Tupe’s non-attendance at hearings in 2018. Further disclosure orders were made including to require Mr Lange to produce documents relating to the transfer of the Kaitaia property and the forgiveness of debt.

[12] The Western Australian proceeding ultimately went to a final hearing in April 2019. Ms Lange-Tupe did not attend.

[13] In a lengthy judgment dated 12 June 2019,…

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 Lange v Lange

Details

AGLC: Lange v Lange [2020] NZHC 2560
Case: [2020] NZHC 2560
Decision Date: 30 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Debra Lange applied to enforce a Family Court of Western Australia judgment against Terry Lange and Maria Lange-Tupe, seeking a sale order of their New Zealand property. The respondents opposed enforcement and applied for a stay of execution of the judgment and sale order. They also applied for leave and an extension of time to oppose registration of the Western Australian judgment. The respondents argued that enforcement of the Western Australian judgment would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and that the judgment should be set aside under s 61 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010. The court dismissed the respondents' application for a stay and to set aside registration of the judgment. The court found that the respondents had not applied to set aside registration of the judgment within the time limit specified in s 61(3) of the TTPA. In any event, the court found that enforcement of the judgment would not be contrary to public policy in New Zealand. The court also found that the Western Australian judgment was not "given in a proceeding the subject matter of which was immovable property, or was given in a proceeding in rem the subject matter of which was movable property" not situated in Australia within s 61(2)(c) of the TTPA. The court further found that the existence of a separate New Zealand Family Court proceeding did not justify a stay of enforcement. The court held that delay and prejudice also weighed against a stay of enforcement. Finally, the court held that enforcement of the Western Australian judgment would not give rise to a miscarriage of justice and that a sale order was in the interests of justice. The respondents' application for a stay and to set aside registration of the Western Australian judgment is dismissed. The applicant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

Orders