Reserved judgment — jurisdiction of District Court — property law orders — transfer to High Court — District Courts Act 2016, ss 74-79 — Property Law Act 2007, ss 4, 264, 312-318, 339, 348, 357 & 362 — Tax Administration Act 1994, s 15B — Interpretation Act 1999, s 5 — District Court Rules 2014, r 20.13 — District Courts Act 1947 — Matrimonial Property Act 1976, s 4 — Atkinson v Haworth [2019] NZDC 11201 — Mitchell v Mitchell HC Palmerston North M 80-94, 6 October 1994 — Atvars v Atvars [2019] NZFC 6757 — Cooper v Vaughan [2017] NZDC 11607 — Maori Trustee v Hooper [2017] NZDC 10975, [2018] DCR 353. This was a counterclaim for an order for the sale of a residential property and division of proceeds between the parties in the proceedings. At issue was: whether the District Court's general jurisdiction under s 74 of the District Courts Act 2016 (DCA) was cumulative so that any claim must meet both limbs under s 74(1); and if so, whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and make an order under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA). The District Court is a creature of statute and only has power to hear claims and make orders where provided by legislation. The Judge determined that s 74 was cumulative, so that both the financial jurisdiction limb (claims of up to $350,000) and the statutory jurisdiction limb (where under any other enactment the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding) needed to be met in order for the case to be heard in the District Court. Section 362 of the PLA lists various provisions under which the District Court had jurisdiction to make orders. Section 339 is not listed. The Judge rejected counsel for the defendant's argument that r 20.13 of the District Court Rules, providing for applications to the court under ss 332-343 of the PLA, meant that the District Court had jurisdiction under s 339 of the PLA to make an order, stating that "One cannot override (as a general, indeed almost universal, rule) a statue by subordinate legislation." The Judge held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to make the relevant orders and stated that the claim should be transferred to the High Court. Judgment Date: 17 April 2020.