Walsh v Gough - [2025] NZHC 3471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2024-488-122

[2025] NZHC 3471

UNDER Section 343 of the Property Law Act 2007 and Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

MICHAEL EDWARD WALSH

Applicant

AND

BARRY JOSEPH GOUGH

Respondent

Hearing: 3 July 2025

Appearances:

R C Mark for the Applicant Respondent in person

Judgment:

14 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 November 2025 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:
Mr R C Mark, Solicitor, Kerikeri The Respondent

WALSH v GOUGH [2025] NZHC 3471 [14 November 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Walsh applies for an order under s 343(g) of the Property Law Act 2007 (the PLA) authorising the Registrar of the High Court at Whangārei to sign the documents required to effect a subdivision of a property near Kaeo in Northland ordered by this Court on 28 November 2018.1 Mr Walsh seeks this further order since his co-owner, Mr Gough, has refused to sign the documents. Mr Gough maintains that an alternative subdivision proposal is preferable.

[2] Mr Gough did not file a notice of opposition as directed but he did file an affidavit setting out the essence of his argument that the subdivision ordered should not proceed and that there should be an alternative fairer subdivision. Mr Gough also did not file written submissions as directed but he appeared in person at the hearing to oppose the application.

Factual background

[3] The background narrative was set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 24 August 2022 declining Mr Gough’s application for an extension of time to appeal this Court’s judgment of 28 November 2018:2
[6] Mr Gough and Mr Walsh purchased the property in 1984. They contributed equally to the purchase price and towards the vendor mortgage. In 1989 Mr Gough and Mr Walsh agreed they would split the property into equal halves, with Mr Walsh occupying the “front” half of the property (Lot 1) and Mr Gough the “back” half of the property (Lot 2).

[7] Mr Gough and Mr Walsh developed their respective allotments. Mr Gough built a home, barns and other structures on Lot 2. Mr Walsh built barns and other structures on Lot 1.

[8] In 2011 or 2012, Mr Gough and Mr Walsh agreed to subdivide the property in accordance with their earlier agreement so as to ensure they would each receive freehold properties each comprising approximately 80 ha. Mr Walsh applied for a resource consent for the proposed subdivision, which was granted on 29 March 2012.

[9] In 2014, Mr Walsh instructed a surveyor to survey the property. Mr Gough however, changed his mind about the agreement. He formed the view Mr Walsh was getting the better half of the property. At about this time,

1 Walsh v Gough [2018] NZHC 3104, (2018) 20 NZCPR 212.
2 Gough v…

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 Walsh v Gough

Details

AGLC: Walsh v Gough [2025] NZHC 3471
Case: [2025] NZHC 3471
Decision Date: 14 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walsh v Gough [2025] NZHC 3471 involves Mr. Michael Edward Walsh applying for an order under Section 343(g) of the Property Law Act 2007 to allow the Registrar of the High Court at Whangārei to sign the documents necessary to effect a previously ordered subdivision of a property near Kaeo in Northland. This application follows Mr. Barry Joseph Gough's refusal to sign the required documents. Gough contends that the proposed subdivision is not fair and raises concerns about access to his allotment. The background of the case reveals that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Gough originally purchased the property in 1984, with an agreement to split it into equal halves. This agreement was formalized in 2011, leading to a resource consent being granted in 2012. However, subsequent disagreements and a change of mind by Mr. Gough led to Mr. Walsh applying to the High Court for a subdivision order in 2018. The Court granted the order, directing an equal split of the property.

The legal issues in this case centre around whether the Court should authorize the Registrar to sign the documents for the subdivision, despite Mr. Gough's refusal to do so, and if there are justifiable reasons for his refusal. Section 343(g) of the PLA allows the Court to make further orders necessary to effect a property division. The Court must determine if Mr. Gough's concerns about the fairness of the split and access to his allotment are valid and whether they warrant revisiting the original subdivision order. The Court also considers whether Mr. Gough's refusal to sign the documents is justified or if it is merely an attempt to relitigate the earlier decision.

The Court found that Mr. Gough's concerns had already been addressed in previous proceedings, including a judgment by the Court of Appeal in 2022. The Court ruled that the original boundary line ordered by the Court in 2018 should stand and that the slight discrepancy in the size of the allotments due to a more precise survey does not warrant revisiting the order. Regarding access, the Court noted that the issues were either already addressed in the earlier proceedings or could not be revisited due to the declined leave to appeal. The Court concluded that there was no good reason for Mr. Gough's refusal to sign the documents and authorized the Registrar to sign the required documents to effect the subdivision.

In conclusion, the Court made an order authorizing the Registrar to sign the documents required to effect the subdivision ordered by the High Court on 28 November 2018. The Court urged the parties to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to costs, providing guidance on the principles applicable under the High Court Rules 2016.

Orders