Sue v Sue - [2024] NZHC 3892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2022-454-32

[2024] NZHC 3892

BETWEEN
PANATAHI SUE

Plaintiff

AND

TANYA JANE SUE

Defendant

Hearing: 3-4 November 2024

Appearances:

G Mason for Plaintiff M Leggat for Defendant

Judgment:

18 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Mrs Panatahi Sue (the plaintiff) (Panatahi) has four children, including Ms Tanya Jane Sue (the defendant) (Tanya) and Mr Peter Sue Jnr. Panatahi and Tanya co-own the property at Lot 3, Taonui Road, Colyton (Lot 3) as tenants in common in equal shares.

[2] On 10 May 2022, Panatahi filed a statement of claim alleging she was suffering hardship by being denied access to the proceeds of her equity in Lot 3, due to Tanya’s refusal to agree to selling the property or purchasing Panatahi’s interest in the property.

[3]The plaintiff seeks:

(a)an order under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) providing for the defendant to purchase the plaintiff’s share in Lot 3 at a fair and reasonable price, to be determined according to a mechanism to be

SUE v SUE [2024] NZHC 3892 [18 December 2024]

stipulated by the Court pursuant to s 343 of the PLA and, in the event this option is not exercised within the timeframe to be set by the Court;

(b)an order pursuant to s 339 of the PLA for Lot 3 to be sold for the best reasonably obtainable price using a mechanism to be set by the Court;

(c)for the proceeds of the sale to be divided between the parties making allowance for the use and occupation of Lot 3 by the defendant per s 343(f) of the PLA and such other matters as the Court considers necessary and desirable; and

(d)costs.

[4] Tanya opposes those orders. She alleges these proceedings are being driven by her brother Peter Sue Jnr who she claims has a malign influence over the plaintiff. She says Panatahi owes her significant sums, and makes a counter claim that:

(a)because the plaintiff received the whole proceeds of sale of Lot 2, but only held a half-share in that property, the defendant is beneficially entitled to the whole of Lot 3;

(b)if the Court finds the plaintiff is entitled beneficially to a one-half share of Lot 3, the plaintiff’s receipt and retention of both halves of the sale proceeds from the sale of Lot 2 unjustly enriched the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant; and

(c)if the Court finds the plaintiff is entitled beneficially to a one-half share of Lot 3, the plaintiff then holds beneficially for the defendant one-half of the proceeds of sale of Lot 2, and it would be unconscionable and unjust for the plaintiff to retain the entire sale proceeds of Lot 2 whilst also receiving any share of Lot 3.

[5] The defendant also initially pursued counter claims in respect of the property at 104A Atawhai Road (Atawhai Road), but has since made clear those…

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 Sue v Sue

Details

AGLC: Sue v Sue [2024] NZHC 3892
Case: [2024] NZHC 3892
Decision Date: 18 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved a dispute between co-owners of Lot 3, Taonui Road, Colyton, between Panatahi Sue (the plaintiff) and Tanya Jane Sue (the defendant). The plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to purchase her share in Lot 3 at a fair and reasonable price, or alternatively, for Lot 3 to be sold and the proceeds divided. Tanya opposed these orders and made counterclaims asserting beneficial entitlement to Lot 3, unjust enrichment claims, and requests for reimbursement of certain sums. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff held an equitable interest in Lot 3, despite having received the entire proceeds from the sale of another jointly-owned property (Lot 2), and whether any of Tanya's counterclaims were valid.

The court found that there was a clear agreement between the parties that the plaintiff was to receive one and a half lots from the subdivision of the properties, confirmed by Tanya's own documentation. The court also found that Tanya's contributions to the maintenance and development of the properties were not substantial enough to claim equitable ownership of the plaintiff's share. Considering the factors under s 342 of the Property Law Act 2007, the court determined that there would be hardship to the plaintiff if the orders were not made, given her age, limited resources, and the intra-family discord. The court rejected Tanya's counterclaims, finding no basis for her claims of beneficial entitlement or unjust enrichment.

The court ordered that the defendant purchase the plaintiff's half share in Lot 3 based on a specified valuation, or alternatively, if the defendant did not wish to purchase, the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The court also reserved the right for either party to seek further directions for the manner of sale if necessary. Costs were to be determined following the filing and service of memoranda within specified timeframes.

Orders