Matthew v Harding - [2025] NZHC 784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-54

[2025] NZHC 784

UNDER Section 39 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and rule 20.10 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

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

BETWEEN

JANET BETSY MATTHEW

Appellant

AND

DAVID LEWIS HARDING

Respondent

Hearing: 2 April 2025

Appearances:

R G Evans for appellant

A L Patterson for respondent

Date of judgment:

4 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

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

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
R G Evans, Auckland
Thomson Wilson, Whangārei

MATTHEW v HARDING [2025] NZHC 784 [4 April 2025]

[1] As duty judge, I have Janet Matthew’s 10 January 2025 interlocutory application to stay enforcement of Judge A P Goodwin’s 13 December 2024 decision in the Family Court at Manukau,1 pending its appeal for hearing on 15 May 2025.

Background

[2] The Judge’s decision was made in the course of ongoing Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the 1976 Act) proceedings between Ms Matthew and her former partner, David Harding.

[3] Under s 25(4), the Judge made an interim order for sale of relationship property in Auckland’s Māngere Bridge at which Ms Matthew lives (the sale order),2 as justified “on balance” to enable reduction of relationship debt,3 by payment of
$200,000 to each party from the proceeds of sale.4 But the Judge made no finding as to the overall quantum of relationship property assets and liabilities, which remains for determination. He noted the precarity of Mr Harding’s financial situation in wholly meeting a loan comprising relationship debt was matched by Ms Matthew’s emotional interest in the property which she could not maintain if required to contribute to the loan.5

Approach to applications for stay pending appeal

[4]Rule 20.10 of the High Court Rules 2016 provides:

Stay of proceedings

(1) An appeal does not operate as a stay—
(a)of the proceedings appealed against; or
(b)of enforcement of any judgment or order appealed against.

(2) Despite subclause (1), the decision-maker or the court may, on application, do any 1 or more of the following pending determination of an appeal:
(a)order a stay of proceedings in relation to the decision appealed against:

1      Harding v Matthew [2024] NZFC 12611.
2      At [10] and [61].
3      At [59]–[60].
4 At [62].
5      At [53]–[57].

(b)order a stay of enforcement of any judgment or order appealed against:
(c)grant any interim relief.

(3) An order made or relief granted under subclause (2) may—
(a)relate to enforcement of the whole of a judgment or order or to a particular form of enforcement:
(b)be subject to any conditions for the giving of security the decision- maker or the court thinks just.

[5] Absent stay, a successful party even in a court from which appeal lies to this Court may enforce the judgment as a benefit of that judgment…

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 Matthew v Harding 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: [2025] NZHC 784
Decision Date: 4 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Janet Betsy Matthew sought an interlocutory stay of enforcement of a decision by Judge A P Goodwin, pending her appeal against the decision. The appeal was listed for hearing on 15 May 2025. The decision was made in the course of Property (Relationships) Act 1976 proceedings between the parties. The Judge ordered the sale of relationship property in Auckland’s Māngere Bridge at which Ms Matthew lives, as justified “on balance” to enable reduction of relationship debt, by payment of $200,000 to each party from the proceeds of sale. However, the Judge made no finding as to the overall quantum of relationship property assets and liabilities, which remains for determination. The Judge’s order was “as per the application … as subsequently amended” and for draft orders to be filed; those filed orders expressly addressed access to the property. Stay presently was sought of enforcement of those orders.

The court considered the well-settled factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant a stay, including the apparent strength or weakness of the appeal, and the 1976 Act’s principles. Ms Matthew’s bona fides were established by the appeal’s hearing next month. Mr Harding accepted Ms Matthew’s appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, and would not oppose its grant if made conditional on payments by Ms Matthew to him referable to contended relationship debt. However, the difficulty with the latter proposition was that while it was undisputed the subject property was relationship property, the Judge only found $450,000 of a $702,000 loan (taken out by Mr Harding and secured against property Mr Harding alleges separately is his) was relationship debt. But the status of the balance had yet to be determined, as had those of other assets and liabilities. Mr Harding contended there were “many financial adjustments” to be made in his favour against any equal sharing presumption. Ms Matthew also had claims against assets he asserted were his separate property. No substantial steps to progress sale of the property had yet been taken, but Mr Harding continued to be paid outgoings in relation to it by Ms Matthew since June 2023. Although it was not express in his notice of opposition, Mr Harding also said any stay should be conditional on Ms Matthew permitting access to the property to prepare it for sale. But the Judge’s order was “as per the application … as subsequently amended” and for draft orders to be filed; those filed orders expressly addressed access to the property. Stay presently was sought of enforcement of those orders. The court was not prepared to condition any stay with a requirement for payments predicated on the prospective outcome of the Family Court’s determination of the status of the parties’ other property, or any requirement that was made in the court below. The court concluded that at issue before it only was if enforcement of that decision should be stayed. Given the parties’ agreement Ms Matthew’s appeal would be rendered nugatory by the property’s prior sale, the court ordered a stay of enforcement of the Judge’s decision.

Any enforcement of Judge A P Goodwin’s 13 December 2024 judgment and consequent orders is stayed, pending determination of Ms Matthew’s appeal.

Orders