Legal Research
Cases
Lawson v Goff

Lawson v Goff

Case [2025] NZHC 1857 9 July 2025

Breach of Contract

Disposition of Property

Family Law

Intermingling

Property Classification

Settlor Loan

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-000602

[2025] NZHC 1857

UNDER The Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the North Shore Family Court dated 22 February 2024 in FAM-2015-090-405

BETWEEN

SARAH LAWSON

Appellant

AND

BARRY GOFF

First Respondent

Continued …

Hearing:

Further submissions received:

29 October 2024

11 November 2024

Appearances:

C J C McLean, C J Cartwright and S R W Maxwell for Appellant V A Crawshaw KC and S M Wilson for First Respondent

L J Kearns KC for Second Respondent

Judgment:

9 July 2025

Reissued:

22 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 July 2025 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: McLean Law Ltd, Auckland
Haigh Lyon, Auckland Shieff Angland, Auckland

LAWSON v GOFF [2025] NZHC 1857 [9 July 2025]

ANDBARRY GOFF and X LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ALICE GOFF TRUST

Second Respondent

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction[1]
Background[4]

The crux of Ms Lawson’s claim in the Family Court and

Mr Goff’s response[19]
The Family Court Decision[25]
The present appeal[40]
Approach to granting leave for new arguments[48]
Test on appeal[51]

Points on appeal [54]

Alleged discovery deficiencies[56]
Onus of proof[60]

The Settlor Loan [69]

Genesis of the Settlor Loan[70]

Mr Goff ’s acknowledged application of relationship property[74]

Parties’ initial statements[78]

Ms Lawson’s ground of appeal relating to the Settlor Loan[80]

Consideration of the Settlor Loan at trial[85]

Issue of prejudice[91]

Was the Settlor Loan relationship property?[95]

Mr Goff’s AGT Loan balances [98]

Transfers from Mr Goff to the AGT[105]

Mr Goff Snr’s AGT loan balances [114]

The intermingling of funds in Mr Goff Snr’s account[119]

Specific transactions[124]

Transfers totalling $380,555[126]

$39,000 loan for car[134]

Pakman Ltd[135]

Conclusion[141]

AMP Policies[142]

Savings for Mr Goff’s elder sons [148]

Other appeal points[152]

Value of Ms Lawson’s legal practice[154]

Economic disparity[158]

Constructive trust[160]

Result and orders[163]

Introduction

[1] Sarah Lawson and Barry Goff have been engaged in protracted and acrimonious litigation following the breakdown of their marriage in 2015.1 Ms Lawson brings proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) against Mr Goff in his personal capacity, and also against Mr Goff and X Ltd as trustees of the Alice Goff Trust (the AGT).

[2] On 5 March 2024, Judge M L Rogers in the North Shore Family Court issued a decision dividing relationship property between the parties (the Decision).2 Ms Lawson appeals. In essence, she says the Judge ought to have concluded that Mr Goff transferred substantial amounts of relationship property to the AGT and/or to his father’s accounts and that this should be reflected in Ms Lawson receiving the bulk of relationship property and significant assets of the AGT.

[3] On the eve of the hearing, Mr McLean for Ms Lawson filed submissions which the respondents say departed significantly from the points of appeal and submissions previously filed,…

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 Lawson v Goff

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Goff [2025] NZHC 1857
Case: [2025] NZHC 1857
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Sarah Lawson appealed a decision of the North Shore Family Court concerning the division of relationship property between her and Barry Goff. The appeal was heard by Anderson J, who found in favour of Ms Lawson on several points, thereby varying the orders made by the Family Court. The appeal hinged on the classification of certain assets and loans as relationship property, which should have been divided between the parties. Anderson J found that the Settlor Loan, which was classified as Mr Goff's separate property, should have been considered relationship property. Similarly, certain funds that Mr Goff had set aside for his elder sons were found to be relationship property, not separate property, and should have been accounted for in the division of assets. Finally, the value of Ms Lawson's life insurance policies was adjusted based on a more accurate assessment of their surrender value at the end of the relationship. These findings led to the partial allowance of Ms Lawson's appeal. The respondents were directed to file submissions on costs, with the final determination to be made by the Court.

Orders