High Court finds no property interest arising from joint venture agreement
New Zealand’s Court of Appeal refused to set aside a notice of abandonment of a claim, which asserted a property interest based on a joint venture agreement, upon upholding a finding that the equitable doctrine of laches barred the claim.
In Werder v Lyons [2025] NZCA 643, the applicant and the first respondent had a relationship, bought a home together in 1994, and separated in 1995 after the applicant participated in a Catholic seminar.
In 1996, the first and second respondents married. Beginning in 2002, the applicant resided with the married couple. The first and second respondents separated in 2011 and became involved in Family Court proceedings over their relationship property.
According to the applicant, in 1997, the three of them signed a joint venture agreement that gave him a 50 percent interest in all properties the formerly married couple would ever own.
On 28 February 2025, the High Court denied the applicant’s claim and ordered him to pay costs. The High Court determined that:
Last 10 March, the applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant could not pay the costs awarded. On 27 March, the applicant filed a notice of appeal, citing documents upon which he had previously disavowed reliance.
On 8 and 9 April, the respondents applied to increase security for the appeal costs.
On 10 April, the applicant filed a notice to abandon the appeal under r 44 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. He alleged that he could not pay security for costs.
In the present proceeding, the applicant applied for leave to set aside the notice of abandonment. He submitted that he:
The four respondents – the formerly married couple and their respective trustee companies – opposed this application.
The first respondent argued that he had incurred legal costs for five years without prospects of recovery and would spend more if the application wound up succeeding. He added that the appeal lacked merit and prevented him and his partner from moving on.
The second respondent rejected the applicant’s most recent accusations. She asserted that she had spent all her savings on the Family Court and other proceedings, which took a toll on her and her son.
Counsel for the second respondent and her trustee company submitted that the applicant was fit to give evidence, could have instructed his lawyer regarding the appeal, and reached a deliberate decision with the benefit of legal advice.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand declined the application to set aside the notice of abandonment upon seeing no compelling or exceptional reasons to do so.
The court deemed it difficult to identify much merit in the challenge to the laches finding. The court ruled that reviving the appeal would prejudice the respondents. The court added that affirming the finality principle would serve the interests of justice.
The court noted that the applicant had the benefit of legal advice when he deliberately decided to abandon his appeal, but later seemed to regret his decision.
The court held that the respondents’ allegedly ‘aggressive’ approach consisted of relatively unremarkable letters from lawyers.
Lastly, the court declined to order costs. The court pointed out that the respondents did not seek any, presumably due to the applicant’s statements about his impecuniosity.
