Minehan v McGuigan - [2020] NZHC 1686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CIV-2019-418-000001

[2020] NZHC 1686

UNDER section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN

DEA MARIE MINEHAN

First Plaintiff

JULIE MARIE MADIGAN
Second Plaintiff

AND

BEDE CHRISTOPHER McGUIGAN

First Defendant

KIERAN HUGH McGUIGAN

Second Defendant

Hearing: 8 July 2020

Counsel:

D L Bell for the Plaintiffs

No appearance for the Defendants

Judgment:

14 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Doogue on 14 July 2020 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Parry Field Lawyers, Christchurch

MINEHAN & ANOR v McGUIGAN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1686 [14 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs and the first defendant are cousins who own three properties near Ross on the West Coast of the South Island. The properties are known as the Totara Valley Block, Paddy’s Block and the Mikonui River Run.

[2] The three properties have been farmed in conjunction with each other in a farming partnership for many years, by the same family through the generations.

[3] The plaintiffs seek an order under s 339(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 2007 (the Act), requiring them to purchase the first defendant’s interest in the properties at a fair and reasonable price and binding the defendant to give effect to the order by transferring his interest in the properties to the plaintiffs; or alternatively an order under s 339(1)(b) of the Act, dividing the properties amongst the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

[4] The first defendant has not taken any steps in the matter, and the claim proceeds by way of formal proof.

Background

[5] The first plaintiff is the executrix of the Estates of Martin John Minehan (Martin) and James Francis Minehan (Jim). Martin and Jim inherited the Totara Valley Block from their father. Martin is the plaintiffs’ father.

[6] Jim and Martin operated the Totara Valley Block as a farm through a partnership called “Minehan Bros” (the Partnership). They then purchased Paddy’s Block and Mikonui River Run as tenants in common in equal shares.

Administration of the Estates

[7] Jim died on 22 January 1994. He left his estate to Martin and to their sister Aileen. Martin and Aileen were both appointed executors of Jim’s estate.

[8] Aileen died on 13 January 2012. She left her estate to her nephews, the first and second defendants. Aileen died before Jim’s estate was administered.

[9] Martin died on 23 August 2014. He left his estate to the plaintiffs, and the first plaintiff was appointed as his executrix. The first plaintiff also became executrix of Jim’s estate.

[10] The net result of the succession is that the first plaintiff inherited a half share of the properties, the second plaintiff inherited a one-quarter share, and the first and second defendants inherited a one-eighth share each. Since the commencement of the proceedings, the second defendant has transferred his one-eighth interest to the first…

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 Minehan v McGuigan

Details

AGLC: Minehan v McGuigan [2020] NZHC 1686
Case: [2020] NZHC 1686
Decision Date: 14 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, who are cousins of the first defendant, sought an order for the purchase of the first defendant’s interest in three properties or an order for the division of the properties. The first defendant did not appear in the proceedings. The plaintiffs alleged that the relationship between them and the defendants was extremely acrimonious, and they had been unable to reach agreement about the properties. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an order requiring them to purchase the first defendant’s share in the properties at a fair and reasonable price. The court held that dividing the properties in kind would not be appropriate, as the properties form a farming unit which has been farmed by the parties’ family for generations. The court ordered that the plaintiffs obtain an updated valuation of the properties from a registered valuer and file that in Court. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders