Beach-Ward v Ward - [2023] NZHC 1958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2022-443-003

[2023] NZHC 1958

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

AND

IN THE MATTER

of an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court at New Plymouth

BETWEEN

CHERIE ANNE BEACH-WARD

Applicant

AND

MICHAEL PAUL WARD

Respondent

On the Papers

1958(submissions received 27 March 2023 and 28 April 2023)

Counsel:

A Fisher KC and V A Crawshaw KC for Applicant S Jefferson KC and C A Gelston for Respondent

Judgment:

26 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] Mrs Beach-Ward seeks special leave to appeal my October 2022 decision in Beach Ward v Ward.1 In that decision, I had dismissed her appeal from a decision in the Family Court, where Judge L Harrison had ordered a relationship property division (adjusted for economic disparity) of approximately 52:48 in Ms Beach-Ward’s favour.2

1 Beach-Ward v Ward [2022] NZHC 2693, [2022] NZFLR 522.
2 Ward v Beach-Ward [2021] NZFC 8512. Ms Beach-Ward had sought a 60:40 split.

BEACH-WARD v WARD [2023] NZHC 1958 [26 July 2023]

[2] Leave to bring a second appeal against Judge Harrison’s decision is required, and on 7 February 2023 I granted Ms Beach-Ward leave to apply for that leave out of time. On 24 February 2023 I directed that the application for leave be determined on the papers. Submissions were subsequently filed but unfortunately were not forwarded to me until last month.

Relevant background

[3] Although there were a number of points raised by Ms Beach-Ward in her appeal before me, as will shortly become clear, her application for leave is focused squarely on economic disparity in terms of s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) and, in particular, the application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v Williams.3

[4] The majority in Scott confirmed the existence of a “working assumption” that a division of functions within the relationship along traditional lines was to the benefit of both parties and restricted the non-career partner’s income earning ability and enhanced the career partner’s earning ability.4 In other words, the assumption is that a traditional division of functions within the relationship is assumed to be the cause of any disparity. The majority observed that while this working assumption can be displaced on the facts, only strong evidence of some other causative factor which is clearly independent of the division of functions will be sufficient to negative or limit it. In that regard Arnold J said:5
… I accept that it will be legitimate to point to personal characteristics as a complete or partial explanation of post-separation disparity in some situations, as where, for example, a career partner enters a relationship as a well-established and successful business or professional person. In that type of case, it may be that only part of the disparity can fairly be said to result from the division of responsibilities in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beach-Ward v Ward

Details

AGLC: Beach-Ward v Ward [2023] NZHC 1958
Case: [2023] NZHC 1958
Decision Date: 26 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beach-Ward v Ward, Mrs Beach-Ward sought special leave to appeal the High Court’s decision from October 2022, which dismissed her appeal from a Family Court decision ordering a division of approximately 52:48 in her favour. The applicant sought a 60:40 split. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the High Court had correctly applied the “working assumption” test from the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v Williams when determining the quantum of compensation payable under section 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In particular, Mrs Beach-Ward argued that the High Court erred in partially displacing the working assumption and that it had relied on factors that did not meet the test set by the Supreme Court.

The court examined the principles for granting leave to appeal, including the requirement for the appeal to raise a question of law or fact capable of serious argument and involving an interest of sufficient importance. The court noted that the proposed appeal seemed to focus on factual matters of weight, which do not typically warrant a grant of leave. The court concluded that the matters raised did not constitute questions of law or fact capable of serious argument, nor did they involve a private or public interest significant enough to justify the cost and delay of a further appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore declined.

Orders