For Roshyn Singh Lyons and Rajeshwari Gosai their relationship was long over and all relationship property divided, when out of the blue came a claim from former family friend Ian Werder claiming a share of those assets stating that twenty-five years ago all three were party to a joint venture property agreement.
Finding that all three were embroidering the truth in various respects, Justice Anderson ruled there may have been some agreed joint venture arrangement between Roshyn Lyons and Ian Werder, but terms of this agreement were never established on evidence in court.
True facts proved elusive in the face of forged documents coupled with inconsistent and at times barely credible evidence given in court.
Evidence given in Family Court was inconsistent with evidence later given in the High Court. Documents produced in evidence had multiple amendments, some of which could not be explained. Financial records did not match legal realities.
The High Court was told Mr Lyons and Mr Werder met in the early 1990s. They lived together in a property they purchased on Calgary Street in Auckland suburb Sandringham. Their relationship ended about one year later when Mr Werder left for Otago to train for the priesthood.
In 1996, Mr Lyons married Rajeshwari Gosai.
One year later, Mr Werder transferred his half interest in Calgary Street to Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai at a cost of one dollar.
The status of this one dollar consideration loomed large in later litigation.
Mr Lyons said that the 1997 transfer was for a nominal sum because Mr Werder was absent, unable to keep up his share of mortgage payments, and that he had been covering for him.
Mr Werder said the one dollar token payment was part of an overarching joint venture property agreement in which his Calgary Street equity would now be parleyed into purchase of a property portfolio.
Evidence was given that Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai established, over time, a property portfolio encompassing eleven properties across Auckland.
Justice Anderon was to rule that the document dated as a 1997 three-way joint venture property agreement produced in court was in part a forgery. Forensic evidence identified that it had been signed by Mr Lyons and Mr Werder; it had not been signed by Ms Gosai.
Justice Anderson also ruled that the document had not been compiled in 1997. The actual date it had been prepared could not be determined with any accuracy.
Complicating a search for the truth was circumstances of Mr Werder’s return to Auckland after being refused ordination. At one point, he returned to live in a sleep out at rear of Calgary Street.
He paid a weekly sum in cash to Ms Gosai, described by her in subsequent Family Court hearings as being in part reduction of the Calgary Street mortgage. Mr Lyons said these payments were in fact rent and that Ms Gosai should account for half as relationship property.
Later in the High Court, Mr Werder said Ms Gosai’s Family Court evidence reinforced his claim that a joint venture agreement existed.
Also in the High Court, when challenging existence of Mr Werder’s claimed joint venture, Ms Gosai recanted, now saying in evidence his regular cash payments were rent only.
Compounding the confused evidence were handwritten unsigned documents from 2000 and 2003 appearing to allow Mr Werder various percentage shares in named properties. Both Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai denied any knowledge of the documents. Mr Werder’s handwriting expert said Mr Lyons was probably, in part, the author.
There was no evidence of these documents ever being put into effect.
At the time, Mr Werder did not demand the documents be acted on. He was reminded of their existence only during his High Court claim, nearly two decades later.
Justice Anderson ruled that even if there were proof of a 1997 three way joint venture property agreement, it would not be enforceable, because of Mr Werder’s excessive delay.
He had sat on his claimed rights for too long before taking action. If he were to make a claim, it should have been flagged at least by the time Mr Lyons and Ms Gosai were divvying up properties as part of their relationship property claims.
Their Family Court dispute spanned at least six years. Mr Werder was aware of this; he assisted Ms Gosai in preparing her evidence.
Werder v. Singh – High Court (28.02.25)
25.074