Loe v Hala - [2025] NZHC 1439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-001595

[2025] NZHC 1439

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Manukau

BETWEEN

WESLEY LOE and JOHN LOE as executors of the ESTATE OF CATHERINE LANG

Appellant

AND

NEWWEI HALA

Respondent

Hearing: 13 May 2025

Counsel:

J E McLennan for Appellant

S Chandra/Y Tan for Respondent

Judgment:

4 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 June 2025 at 2.30 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Holmden Horrocks, Auckland Turner Hopkins, Auckland
S Chandra, Auckland

LOE v HALA [2025] NZHC 1439 [4 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 17 May 2024, Judge T M Sharkey issued a decision in the Family Court at Manukau granting an extension of time for Mr Newwei Hala to bring an application under s 24 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) to set aside a separation agreement, dated 23 July 2020, between himself and his ex-wife Catherine Lang.1

[2] Ms Lang passed away on 20 August 2023. The appellants are her two sons, Wesley Loe and John Loe, who are the executors and trustees of their mother’s estate. They appeal the decision of Judge Sharkey permitting their father to apply to set aside the separation agreement.

Background

[3] Mr Newwei Hala and Ms Catherine Lang were married on 17 September 1980. The relationship ceased in everything but name in 2009. Mr Hala subsequently moved to Australia with his new partner. On 23 July 2020, Mr Hala and Ms Lang signed a separation agreement under s 21 of the PRA. On 10 August 2020, an order was made dissolving the parties’ marriage. The order was sealed and effective on 11 September 2020.

[4] Under the terms of the separation agreement Ms Lang retained all property in New Zealand; Mr Hala retained all property in Australia and China; and an adjustment payment of $1 million was to be made by Ms Lang to Mr Hala in agreed instalments. Mr Hala’s position is that, at the time of the agreement being signed, neither party owned any property in China and the two properties in Australia were purchased by Mr Hala post-separation. He says that the monetary value of what he received under the agreement was $2,148,000 while Ms Lang received the seven properties the parties owned in New Zealand with a value of more than $10 million.

[5] Mr Hala filed an application in April 2023 seeking leave to apply to set aside the separation agreement out of time.

1 Hala v Loe [2024] NZFC 6252.

[6] The substantive application to set aside the separation agreement is brought on two grounds. First, that the agreement is void as it does not comply with the requirements of s 21F of the PRA because Mr Hala did not receive independent legal advice as to the…

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 Loe v Hala

Details

AGLC: Loe v Hala [2025] NZHC 1439
Case: [2025] NZHC 1439
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Loe v Hala involved an appeal against a Family Court decision that granted an extension of time for Mr Newwei Hala to bring an application to set aside a separation agreement with his ex-wife, Catherine Lang. Catherine Lang passed away before the proceedings could be concluded, and her sons, Wesley Loe and John Loe, as executors of her estate, appealed the decision. The central legal issues were whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for Mr Hala's application and whether the Family Court judge exercised her discretion appropriately in granting the extension.

The Family Court judge considered the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion under s 24(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. These factors included the length of the delay, the adequacy of the explanation for the delay, the substantive merits of the claim, and any prejudice to the respondent. The judge found that the delay was not unreasonable given Mr Hala's circumstances, including his difficulties with the English language and the fact that he had raised the issue of the separation agreement only after Ms Lang was diagnosed with a terminal illness. The judge also noted that the substantive claim had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time. Furthermore, the judge concluded that any prejudice to the respondent was outweighed by the presence of a prima facie case.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the Family Court judge had placed undue weight on Mr Hala’s evidence and insufficient weight on theirs. They contended that the judge did not adequately consider the impact of Ms Lang’s death or the merits of the substantive claim. However, the High Court found that the Family Court judge had correctly identified and considered the relevant factors and that her findings were not plainly wrong. The High Court held that the Family Court judge was within her jurisdiction to grant an extension of time and had exercised her discretion appropriately.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to attempt to agree on costs. If they were unable to agree, specific directions were given for making and replying to cost applications. The High Court's decision upheld the Family Court's discretion in granting the extension of time to Mr Hala.

Orders