Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v M & E Ryan & Sons Limited

Ryan v M & E Ryan & Sons Limited

Case [2022] NZHC 2110 25 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CIV-2021-406-000038

[2022] NZHC 2110

BETWEEN
ANTHONY JOHN GUBBINS RYAN and MARIA ELIZABETH RYAN

Plaintiffs

AND

M & E RYAN & SONS LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 31 May 2022

Appearances:

T G Stapleton QC for Plaintiffs M Radich for Defendant

Judgment:

25 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 August 2022 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RYAN v M & E RYAN & SONS LTD [2022] NZHC 2110 [25 August 2022]

Table of Contents

Para No

Background [6]

Property Law Act

[36]

Summary judgment principles

[41]

The plaintiffs’ submissions

[46]

MER’s submissions

[52]

Analysis

[57]

The extent of each party’s share in the property

[58]

Nature and location of the property

[59]

The number of other co-owners and the extent of the shares

Hardship to the applicant by the refusal of the order in comparison to the hardship to any other person by the making of the order

Contributions made by co-owners

Any other matters the Court considers relevant

[60]

[61]

[68]

[69]

The Agreement

[70]

Post-Agreement conduct

[82]

Taxation and compensation

[86]

My conclusion

[95]

Result

[96]

[1] This is a plaintiffs’ summary judgment application seeking orders under s 339(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 2007 for the division of land that is co-owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant in unequal shares, along with ancillary orders consequent upon the division of the land.1 The main protagonists are brothers, and the litigation follows the breakdown of family relationships.

[2] The land in issue is near Seddon and is planted in vineyards. The land is comprised in five titles, with the plaintiffs and the defendant being the registered proprietors of undivided 77.857 per cent and 22.143 per cent shares in the land respectively. Each party has the exclusive occupation/use of an area of the land, but those areas do not reflect their registered interests. It is this fact that is the genesis of the issues arising in this proceeding.

[3] The plaintiffs seek orders to divide the land according to the parties’ respective areas of occupation on the basis this will give effect to an agreement between the parties of 25 May 2009 by which the defendant acquired its interest in the land.

[4] The defendant does not oppose a division of the land per se, but says that what the plaintiffs are seeking will result in it receiving a 15.03 per cent divided share of the land, rather than its registered 22.143 per cent undivided share and the transfer of considerable value to the plaintiffs at its expense. It says the plaintiffs must pay compensation for what it will lose. The defendant also argues the case is unsuitable for summary judgment due to the lack of taxation and valuation advice, the many material factual disputes that exist, and in circumstances where the Court exercises a…

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 Ryan v M & E Ryan & Sons Limited

Details

AGLC: Ryan v M & E Ryan & Sons Limited [2022] NZHC 2110
Case: [2022] NZHC 2110
Decision Date: 25 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Anthony John Gubbins Ryan and Maria Elizabeth Ryan, and the defendant, M & E Ryan & Sons Limited, over the division of land that was co-owned by both parties in unequal shares. The plaintiffs sought orders under s 339(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 2007 for the division of the land, along with ancillary orders. The main issue before the court was the correct interpretation of an agreement made between the parties on 25 May 2009. The plaintiffs argued that the agreement meant that the land should be divided based on the respective areas of occupation by each party. The defendant, however, contended that the agreement did not provide for a later subdivision of the land and that the division sought by the plaintiffs would result in the defendant receiving a smaller share of the land than it was legally entitled to. The court found that the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment was not suitable, as there were numerous disputed questions of fact and no valuation evidence. The court also found that there was an arguable case that the defendant would be entitled to compensation if the land were divided as the plaintiffs sought. The plaintiffs' application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the case was set down for a telephone case management conference before an Associate Judge on the next available date.

Orders