New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partition of co-owned property

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2022

TELFORD v TELFORD [2022] NZHC 3564

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3564
Court

High Court

The Court ordered a private purchase of the defendants' 27% interest at a fixed property value of NZD 1,292,500 (mid-point of valuations) by Billy, Eileen and/or Shelley to settle by 28 February 2023, failing which the property must be sold on the open market by auction with a NZD 1,300,000 reserve; the defendants are awarded rent NZD 174.15 per week from 16 June 2022 until settlement and no reimbursement for insurance, rates or mortgage is made due to lack of evidence of payment.
14 Jul 2020

MINEHAN & ANOR v McGUIGAN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1686

Citation

(2020) 21 NZCPR 135
Court

High Court

An order under s 339(1)(c) was warranted and made because the plaintiffs as majority co-owners (three-quarters) established undue hardship and impediment to efficient farming operations caused by the defendants' non-engagement and obstruction, division in kind was impracticable given three discontiguous parcels, plaintiffs had made substantial contributions and the court could bind the defendant to transfer his share; an updated valuation is required to determine the fair and reasonable purchase price and costs are to be awarded to the plaintiffs (quantum reserved).
3 Dec 2018

PENE v PENE [2018] NZHC 3140

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3140
Court

High Court

Having regard to s 342 factors the Court ordered sale under s 339 because the plaintiff demonstrated significant hardship, the defendant was in default of financial obligations and uncooperative, the parties’ relationship had irretrievably broken down, and the balance of justice favoured sale; the Court awarded compensation to plaintiff from defendant’s 50% share for specified contributions and unpaid occupation, fixed a reserve price, and directed how sale proceeds were to be applied and divided.
23 Mar 2018

SILLICK v SILLICK & ANOR [2018] NZHC 510

Citation

[2018] NZHC 510
Court

High Court

Weighing the mandatory s 342 factors, sale under s 339 was ordered because division in kind was impracticable and uneconomic, Brian had not met outgoings and would impose disproportionate hardship on Fran, and sale best addressed comparative hardship and liabilities with supervised sale and pro rata distribution of net proceeds.
28 Nov 2017

THOMAS v MACKINTOSH AND HALL AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTESS OF THE ESTATE OF NORMAN DEAN THOMAS [2017] NZCA 549

Citation

[2017] NZCA 549
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed because it was inappropriate to require the appellant to purchase the estate's half share under s 339 while his constructive trust claim remained unresolved; the High Court s 339 order was set aside and the Court directed enforcement of the Heads of Agreement funding mechanism instead, with parties to file memoranda setting out payment arrangements.

New Zealand Case Law

TELFORD v TELFORD [2022] NZHC 3564

MINEHAN & ANOR v McGUIGAN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1686

PENE v PENE [2018] NZHC 3140

SILLICK v SILLICK & ANOR [2018] NZHC 510

THOMAS v MACKINTOSH AND HALL AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTESS OF THE ESTATE OF NORMAN DEAN THOMAS [2017] NZCA 549