Selak v Goodwin - [2025] NZHC 3203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1137

[2025] NZHC 3203

BETWEEN
SUZANNE SELAK

Applicant

AND

ASHLEY MICHAEL GOODWIN

Respondent

Hearing: 6 October 2025

Appearances:

Patrick Shanahan-Pinker for the Applicant Andrew Gilchrist for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application to sustain notice of claim]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 October 2025 at 3:00pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

……………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
K3 Legal (Peter Napier/Patrick Shanahan-Pinker), Auckland, for the Applicant Howard-Smith Pascoe (Philip Howard-Smith), Auckland, for the Respondent

Counsel:
Andrew Gilchrist, Southern Cross Chambers, Auckland, for the Respondent

SELAK v GOODWIN [2025] NZHC 3203 [30 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] Ms Suzanne Selak (Ms Selak) applies for orders that a notice of claim 13235552.1 (the Notice) lodged over eight properties (the Properties) owned by Mr Ashley Goodwin or trusts associated with him (Mr Goodwin) not lapse.

[2] Ms Selak and Mr Goodwin were in a de-facto relationship for at least 10 years until 2024. Ms Selak is now bringing a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) in the Family Court for division of the relationship property. She seeks an order that the Notice remain on the title of the Properties to protect her substantive claim until it is finally determined in the Family Court.

Background

[3] On 5 May 2025, Mr Goodwin applied to Land Information New Zealand to lapse the Notice over the Properties. Ms Selak then filed her application that the Notice not lapse with this Court on 20 May 2025.

[4]
are:

The

(a)

details of the Properties in respect of which the Notice has been lodged

Unit 325, Scenic Suites, 27 Stanley Street, Queenstown, contained in

RT 5167;

(b)

Unit 326, Scenic Suites, 27 Stanley Street, Queenstown, contained in RT 5168;

(c)

910-912 New North Road, Mt Albert, Auckland, contained in RT NA404/235 and RT NA379/230;

(d)6/66 Hamilton Road, Herne Bay, Auckland, contained in RT NA69C/256;

(e)4/66 Hamilton Road, Herne Bay, Auckland, contained in RT NA69C/260;

(f)6 Mt Albert Road, Mt Albert, Auckland, contained in RT NA715/309;

(g)5 Bayview Terrace, Tairua, contained in RT SA23A/1452; and

(h)1 Bernard Street, Two Mile Bay, Taupo, contained in RT SA6C/1279.

[5] Many of the Properties are held by trusts. The ownership of the properties is as follows:

(a)Mr Goodwin in his personal capacity:

(i)100 per cent share in 1 Bernard Street; and

(ii)43 per cent share in 4/66 Hamilton Road.

(b)The Ashley Goodwin Family Trust:

(i)21 per cent share in 4/66 Hamilton Road;

(ii)50 per cent share in Unit 325, Scenic Suites; and

(iii)50 per cent share in Unit 326, Scenic Suites.

(c)The New North Trust:

(i)100 per cent of 6 Mt Albert Road;

(ii)100 per cent of 910–912 New North Road; and

(iii)100 per cent of 5 Bayview Terrace.

(d)The AM Goodwin Family Trust No. 4 holds a 36 per cent…

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 Selak v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Selak v Goodwin [2025] NZHC 3203
Case: [2025] NZHC 3203
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Suzanne Selak applied for an order that a notice of claim lodged over eight properties owned by Mr Ashley Goodwin or associated trusts not lapse. The properties were diverse, including residential, commercial, and holiday properties, with some held personally by Mr Goodwin and others by various trusts. Mr Goodwin sought to have the notice of claim lapsed, arguing that Ms Selak had no legitimate claim to any interest in the properties outside of the family home. Ms Selak argued that she needed the notice of claim to remain to protect her potential interest in the properties while her claim in the Family Court was determined. The court held that the notice of claim should be sustained. The court reasoned that removal of the notice could only be justified if it was completely satisfied that Ms Selak's interests would not be prejudiced, which could not be determined until the forensic accountant's report was available. The court also noted that Ms Selak had offered to remove the notice from any property where Mr Goodwin could demonstrate she had no interest, avoiding unnecessary restrictions. The court granted Ms Selak's application and ordered costs to follow the event, with the parties to agree on costs or, failing agreement, submit memoranda for a decision by the court.

Orders