PAWSON v HAUGH [2023] NZHC 1262

PAWSON v HAUGH [2023] NZHC 1262 [26 May 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2023-409-269[2023] NZHC 1262BETWEEN REBECCA JANE PAWSONApplicantAND KEVIN TEREHITA HAUGHRespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: T S Burtenshaw for ApplicantJudgment: 26 May 2023JUDGMENT OF MANDER J[1] The applicant, Ms Rebecca Pawson, seeks leave to commence her proceedingfor orders under ss 339–343 of the Property Law Act 2007 by way of originatingapplication. 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 togetherin April 2021. They separated on 3 September 2022. The relationship is described asbeing one of short duration for relationship property purposes, and it is submitted isnot therefore captured by the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In the course of thatrelationship they purchased a property at 737 Selwyn Road, Rolleston, and a 1986John Deere tractor. Ms Pawson says they each contributed half to the acquisition ofthese assets by taking out a joint mortgage and paid half the balance of the purchaseprice.[3] Unfortunately, the termination of the relationship was acrimonious and, despitethe parties apparently having contributed equally towards the purchase of the propertythat is sought to be the subject of the substantive application, they have been unableto progress a settlement. Mr Haugh is said not to be engaging with Ms Pawson toprogress the sale of the relationship property or its division.[4] The application to be made under the Property Law Act seeks an order forMs 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. Anapplication for such orders is not one that must be made by originating applicationunder r 19.2. However, the Court has a discretion under r 19.5 to permit otherproceedings to be commenced by originating application where it is in the interests ofjustice to do so. It is submitted on Ms Pawson's behalf that her application under theProperty Law Act is appropriately commenced by that means, the Court havingpreviously permitted these type of applications to be commenced by way oforiginating application.1[5] Having regard to the information set out in Ms Pawson's affidavit andcounsel's memorandum in support, I am satisfied the interests of justice favour theproceeding being commenced by originating application and, in particular, that this isthe best means to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the matter.The proposed application appears relatively straightforward and is limited to thedivision of the parties' jointly owned property, comprising land and buildings situatedon semi-rural land and a tractor. I am advised the parties have been careful tocontribute equally to the purchase price, outgoings and renovation of the property, andthat, apart from these two assets, have kept their remaining property separate. Itappears the only reason the division of this property has not been settled is Mr Haugh'sunwillingness to progress its division, rather than any contest as to the parties'entitlements, although that no doubt remains to be seen.[6] It is not apparent that particularised pleadings are necessary to informMr Haugh of the details of Ms Pawson's application or to further define the issues, nordoes it appear likely that discovery, or other interlocutory applications or expertevidence will be required. Valuation evidence has already been obtained in respect of1 Chiswell v Cunynghame [2020] NZHC 1651, (2020) 21 NZCPR 396; Gallagher v Grant [2021]NZHC 1907; and Austin v Anderson [2020] NZHC 2170.the land. Mr Haugh is the only other party. It is submitted that any factual disputesthat may be raised can be resolved by affidavit evidence, and if cross-examinationdoes become necessary it is likely to be limited given the relatively confined nature ofany potential factual disputes. To illustrate that point, Ms Pawson referenced how anydispute arising in relation to how much the parties have respectively paid into theirjoint account towards the property should be able to be readily determined frombanking records.[7] In the circumstances, therefore, I do not consider the exchange of pleadings isnecessary to fully inform the parties, and that the application is reasonablystraightforward. It is not apparent there are the type of complicating factors that havearisen in other cases relating to similar applications that have either involved collateralagreements and ancillary disputes,2 or which raise difficult issues such as the status ofinherited property.3 Nor does there appear to be any real possibility of cross-claimsthat may result in the need for interlocutory steps such as discovery.4Result[8] Being satisfied the interests of justice favour the proceeding being commencedby originating application, leave is granted. There will be an order to that effect in theterms sought.Costs[9] Costs are reserved.Solicitors:Argyle Welsh Finnigan Limited, Ashburton2 Lung v Liu [2021] NZHC 1810.3 Casbolt v Harman [2020] NZHC 1354.4 Bool v Hammond [2021] NZHC 2749.