Pawson v Haugh - [2023] NZHC 1262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2023-409-269

[2023] NZHC 1262

BETWEEN
REBECCA JANE PAWSON

Applicant

AND

KEVIN TEREHITA HAUGH

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

T S Burtenshaw for Applicant

Judgment:

26 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The applicant, Ms Rebecca Pawson, seeks leave to commence her proceeding for orders under ss 339–343 of the Property Law Act 2007 by way of originating application. The application is made without notice to the respondent, her ex-partner, Mr Kevin Haugh, in accordance with r 19.5 of the High Court Rules.

[2] The parties entered into a relationship in April 2020 and began living together in April 2021. They separated on 3 September 2022. The relationship is described as being one of short duration for relationship property purposes, and it is submitted is not therefore captured by the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In the course of that relationship they purchased a property at 737 Selwyn Road, Rolleston, and a 1986 John Deere tractor. Ms Pawson says they each contributed half to the acquisition of these assets by taking out a joint mortgage and paid half the balance of the purchase price.

[3] Unfortunately, the termination of the relationship was acrimonious and, despite the parties apparently having contributed equally towards the purchase of the property

PAWSON v HAUGH [2023] NZHC 1262 [26 May 2023]

that is sought to be the subject of the substantive application, they have been unable to progress a settlement. Mr Haugh is said not to be engaging with Ms Pawson to progress the sale of the relationship property or its division.

[4] The application to be made under the Property Law Act seeks an order for Ms Pawson to purchase Mr Haugh’s share in the property and other related orders, including, in the alternative, an order for its sale and the division of the proceeds. An application for such orders is not one that must be made by originating application under r 19.2. However, the Court has a discretion under r 19.5 to permit other proceedings to be commenced by originating application where it is in the interests of justice to do so. It is submitted on Ms Pawson’s behalf that her application under the Property Law Act is appropriately commenced by that means, the Court having previously permitted these type of applications to be commenced by way of originating application.1

[5] Having regard to the information set out in Ms Pawson’s affidavit and counsel’s memorandum in support, I am satisfied the interests of justice favour the proceeding being commenced by originating application and, in particular, that this is the best means to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the matter. The proposed application appears relatively straightforward and is limited to the division of the parties’ jointly owned property, comprising land and buildings situated on semi-rural land and a tractor. I am advised the parties have been careful to contribute equally to the purchase price,…

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 Pawson v Haugh

Details

AGLC: Pawson v Haugh [2023] NZHC 1262
Case: [2023] NZHC 1262
Decision Date: 26 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rebecca Pawson applied to the High Court of New Zealand for leave to commence a proceeding for orders under sections 339–343 of the Property Law Act 2007. She sought this against her ex-partner, Kevin Haugh, in relation to property they acquired during their relationship. The application was made without notice to Haugh, in accordance with rule 19.5 of the High Court Rules. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate for the proceeding to be commenced by way of an originating application, as requested by Pawson. The application needed to consider whether this would result in a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the matter.

The court found that the interests of justice favoured the proceeding being commenced by an originating application. The court considered that the application appeared relatively straightforward, limited to the division of jointly owned property. The court noted that the parties had contributed equally to the purchase price and ongoing expenses of the property and had kept other property separate. The main issue appeared to be Haugh's refusal to progress the division of the jointly owned property, rather than any dispute over the parties' entitlements. The court concluded that particularised pleadings were not necessary, and that any factual disputes could likely be resolved through affidavit evidence. The court found that the application was reasonably straightforward, without complicating factors or ancillary disputes.

Leave was granted for the proceeding to be commenced by originating application. The court found that this would facilitate a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the matter. The court reserved costs. The application was made by Argyle Welsh Finnigan Limited on behalf of Pawson.

Orders