Lissienko v Chandra
[2025] NZHC 2879
•1 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-561
[2025] NZHC 2879
UNDER Rules 7.23, 7.55, 19.5, 27.35 and Part 32 of the High Court Rules IN THE MATTER OF
the estate of NATHANIA STELLA HALIM
BETWEEN
ALEXANDER MICHAEL LISSIENKO
Applicant
AND
ERNY CHANDRA
Respondent
Hearing: 29 September 2025 Appearances:
J W H Little for Applicant M G Keall for Respondent
Judgment:
1 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
Background
[1] By originating application dated 20 August 2025 Alexander Michael Lissienko (the Applicant) sought orders recalling and re-granting letters of administration on intestacy that had been granted to Erney Chandra (“the Respondent”) in respect of the estate of her daughter, Nathania Stella Halim (“Nia”). The applicant also sought a declaration that he was the de-facto partner of Nia.
[2] By minute dated 26 August 2025 Cull J made directions as to service of the proceedings, a requirement to attend a Court hearing by AVL on 28 August 2025 and a reminder to the respondent that the assets, bank accounts and property of Nia’s estate
LISSIENKO v CHANDRA [2025] NZHC 2879 [1 October 2025]
were not to be disbursed, distributed or otherwise dissipated or removed from the jurisdiction.
[3] On 28 August 2025 Cull J made a further minute issuing a freezing order and making further timetable directions.
Current issues
[4] The matter was called before me in the Judge’s Chamber’s list (JCL) on 29 September 2025. The issues that required determination were:
(a)whether it was appropriate for the application to proceed as an originating application; and
(b)whether the proceedings should be transferred to Auckland.
[5] There was no dispute that, given the location of all counsel in Auckland, it was appropriate for the proceedings to be transferred to the Auckland registry and I make that order.
[6] The issue in dispute was whether the application was suitable to proceed by way of originating application or whether a statement of claim was required.
[7] Mr Little, counsel for the applicant, referred to the modest size of the estate ($120,000) and the fact that the originating application procedure provided for the most economical way of proceeding including the opportunity for cross-examination to occur should that be required.
[8] Mr Keall, for the respondent, indicated that a large number of factual issues were likely to be in dispute including the nature of the relationship between the applicant and Nia. It was submitted that the Court would be required to determine multiple substantive issues after completing a wide ranging inquiry into disputed facts spanning several years.
Analysis
[9] Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) governs originating applications and was designed to provide “a relatively speedy and inexpensive mechanism for a miscellany of applications which need to be made to the Court under specific statutory provisions”1 in Fisk v X,2 MacKenzie J noted that pt 19, as initially designed was expedient for cases “where there was in reality no opposing party”, but more generally, it is used for cases where it is not necessary to have full pleadings and interlocutory steps for the determination of an application.
[10] The Court of Appeal has indicated that the originating application procedure is not appropriate where factual issues are in dispute.3
[11] It is clear from the extensive affidavit material provided that there are a large number of disputed facts. It is inevitable that there will be cross-examination required. Discovery may also be required although this should be a relatively straight forward process.
Outcome
[12] An originating application is not appropriate on the facts of this case and the matter is to proceed by way of statement of claim and statement of defence.
[13]The proceeding is transferred to the Auckland registry.
Churchman J
Solicitors:
TGT Legal, Auckland for Applicant
Andrew Seton Law Ltd, Auckland for Respondent
1 Jessica Gorman and Ors McGechan on procedure (online loose leaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR Pt 19.01].
2 Fisk v X [2014] NZHC 2797 at [18].
3 Jones v O’Keefe [2019] NZCA 222 at [51].