McDonald v McDonald - [2025] NZCA 115

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA352/2024
[2025] NZCA 115

BETWEEN	ANDREW PHILLIP MACDONALD AND KATHRYN GISELLE ENOCINO MACDONALD AS TRUSTEES OF THE MAKA TRUST Appellants
AND	PHILLIP MACDONALD Respondent

Hearing:	27 February 2025
Court:	Campbell, Peters and Powell JJ
Counsel:	M J Logan for Appellants M J Radich for Respondent
Judgment:	14 April 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellants must pay the respondent’s costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

The appellants, Andrew and Kathryn MacDonald, appeal against a decision of Gendall J declining summary judgment on their claim against the respondent, Phillip MacDonald.[1] Phillip MacDonald is Andrew MacDonald’s father.
[1]MacDonald v MacDonald [2023] NZHC 2255 [judgment under appeal]. For convenience, and with no disrespect intended, we shall refer solely to Andrew from now on, for both himself and Kathryn.
Gendall J declined summary judgment because of a genuine conflict of evidence on the issues which arose on the application, with that conflict only able to be resolved following viva voce evidence.[2]
[2]At [41].
McHerron J granted leave to appeal on 9 May 2024.[3]

Background

[3]MacDonald v MacDonald [2024] NZHC 1134.

Andrew seeks judgment in the sum of $500,000 plus interest. His case is that Phillip is indebted to him in this amount, being the balance of the purchase price due on a sale of land from Andrew to Phillip in 2018. Andrew’s evidence is that he sold the land to Phillip for $1,150,000, pursuant to an agreement for sale and purchase dated 2 March 2018, which he annexes to his affidavit (ASP). Phillip paid $650,000 of the purchase price on settlement on 26 April 2018, with the balance of $500,000 left outstanding as a debt due from Phillip to Andrew. On Andrew’s case, the debt, payable on demand and interest‑free pending demand, is evidenced by a Deed of Acknowledgment of Indebtedness dated 6 April 2018 (Deed). Andrew has made demand but Phillip has not paid. Hence Andrew’s claim for $500,000.
Phillip’s case is that he agreed to pay $650,000 for the land, not $1,150,000, and he does not owe the $500,000 now claimed. Phillip’s evidence is that the sale took place following Andrew contacting him in early 2018 saying that he, Andrew, needed funds. Andrew was unable to borrow in Australia (where he and his family live) or from a New Zealand lender despite having the land available as security. Phillip’s evidence is that, as a result, he agreed to borrow the funds that Andrew required, being $650,000, with the land to be transferred to him but with Andrew to repurchase the land at some future date for the same price. Phillip’s evidence is that he only agreed to purchase the land because Andrew needed money; that he had no wish to purchase the land; and, for reasons set out in the next paragraph,…

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 McDonald v McDonald

Details

AGLC: McDonald v McDonald [2025] NZCA 115
Case: [2025] NZCA 115
Decision Date: 14 April 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Andrew and Kathryn MacDonald, who sought summary judgment against Phillip MacDonald. Andrew claimed that Phillip owed him $500,000, being the balance of the purchase price for a sale of land in 2018. Phillip contested the claim, stating that he had only agreed to pay $650,000, not $1,150,000. The Court of Appeal considered whether the appeal should be dismissed and the appellants required to pay the respondent's costs.

The legal issues included whether the court could grant summary judgment, and if so, whether there was a genuine dispute over the material facts. The Court of Appeal examined whether the Deed of Acknowledgment of Indebtedness could be considered as a standalone document, and if there was a need for further clarification regarding the purchase price and the effect of clause 19.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase. The court also considered whether there was a genuine conflict of evidence that could only be resolved through further evidence at a substantive hearing.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Deed of Acknowledgment of Indebtedness could not be considered as a standalone document, as it was connected to the wider transaction and the agreement for sale and purchase. The court agreed with Gendall J that there was a need for further clarification regarding the purchase price and the effect of clause 19.3, and that other matters were also in genuine dispute. The Court of Appeal held that Gendall J was correct to dismiss the application for summary judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders