IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE
CIV-2019-418-000001
[2020] NZHC 2393
UNDER section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 BETWEEN
DEA MARIE MINEHAN
First Plaintiff
JULIE MARIE MINEHAN
Second PlaintiffAND
BEDE CHRISTOPHER McGUIGAN
First Defendant
KIERAN HUGH McGUIGAN
Second Defendant
On the Papers Counsel:
D L Bell for the Plaintiffs
No appearance for the Defendants
Judgment:
14 September 2020
JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Doogue on 14 September 2020 at 4.15 pm.
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:
Solicitors:
Parry Field Lawyers, Christchurch
MINEHAN v McGUIGAN [2020] NZHC 2393 [14 September 2020]
[1] On 14 July 2020, I granted the plaintiffs an order under s 399(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 2007, requiring them to purchase the first defendant’s interest in the relevant properties at a fair and reasonable price, and binding the defendant to give effect to the order by transferring his interests in the properties to the plaintiffs.1
[2] In that judgment, I required that the plaintiffs obtain an updated valuation of the properties from a registered valuer for the purposes of calculating the purchase price.2
[3] I am now in receipt of that valuation, dated 3 August 2020, which records the current value of the property as $1,650,000. After taking account of a Department of Conservation licence which is an asset of the Minehan Bros Partnership, and not subject to the present application, this means the property is valued at $1,600,000 for present purposes. I therefore confirm the purchase price for the first defendant’s one-quarter share of the property is $400,000 (less the costs and disbursements of
$30,855.25 referred to in my decision of 10 September 20203).
Doogue J
1 Minehan v McGuigan [2020] NZHC 1686.
2 At [68(b)].
- AGLC
- Minehan v McGuigan [2020] NZHC 2393
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 2393
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was the determination of the fair and reasonable price for the first defendant's one-quarter share in the properties, based on an updated valuation. The court had to consider the value of the property as assessed by a registered valuer, taking into account any relevant assets or liabilities associated with the properties. The court also needed to consider the costs and disbursements incurred in the proceedings, as previously determined.
Justice Doogue confirmed the purchase price for the first defendant's one-quarter share of the property, following the receipt of an updated valuation. The court found the current value of the property to be $1,650,000, and after considering a Department of Conservation licence, which was not subject to the present application, the property was valued at $1,600,000 for the purposes of this case. The court confirmed the purchase price for the first defendant’s one-quarter share of the property to be $400,000, less the costs and disbursements of $30,855.25, as previously determined.
The court's final order confirmed the purchase price for the first defendant's one-quarter share of the property, binding the first defendant to transfer his interests in the properties to the plaintiffs at the specified price.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.