Bethell v Bethell - [2018] NZHC 3171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-000967

[2018] NZHC 3171

BETWEEN
DIANA HELEN BETHELL

Appellant

AND

SAMUEL JOHN BETHELL

First Respondent

AND

SAMUEL JOHN BETHELL and CHRISTOPHER ROBERT JUDD

as trustees of the Stumpy Trust Second Respondents

Hearing: 26 June 2018

Appearances:

S H Marsden for the Appellant A R Bradley for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

BETHELL v BETHELL [2018] NZHC 3171 [4 December 2018]

Introduction [1]

Background [3]

The relationship in summary [6]

The appeal and cross appeal [10]

Approach on appeal [16]

Claimed wrongful admission of evidence [21] The status of the debt on current account from the Stumpy Trust to Sam [39]
The challenge to the categorisation of the residual Hussey Developments
debt as his separate debt [63]

Value of agreed relationship property assets [88]

Motor vehicle [91]

Current assets [96]

Accounting as to agreed assets [104]

S 182 FPA – the challenge to the establishment of the Stumpy Trust

as a nuptial settlement [106]

S 182 FPA – the challenge to the Stumpy Trust’s purchase of the farm
as a nuptial settlement [134]

S 182 FPA – the challenge to the Judge’s determination the Trust
was insolvent [152]

S 182 FPR – the exercise of the discretion [174]

Summary of conclusions [188]

Costs [190]

Suppression [191]

Introduction

[1] Diana Bethell (Diana) and Samuel Bethell (Sam) lived together on Timpendean Farm in the Weka Pass area of North Canterbury from about 1999 until September 2014. They married on 3 November 2000 and had two children. They separated in September 2014. The farm was owned at that time by the second respondents as trustees of the Stumpy Trust (the Stumpy Trust). The marriage was dissolved on 18 July 2016.

[2] Issues under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA), as to assets held by Sam and Diana personally and Diana’s application under s 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 (FPA) for a resettlement of the Stumpy Trust, were the subject of a judgment of Judge Murfitt in the Family Court.1 Both Diana and Sam appealed against various aspects of that judgment.

Background

[3] Timpendean Farm and another nearby farm, Pahau Pastures, had been farmed by three generations of the Bethell family before Sam and his brother Hugh Bethell (Hugh) farmed the properties. Sam and Hugh’s great-grandfather was Marmaduke Bethell. Their grandfather, C D Bethell, was known as Stumpy. Sam and Hugh’s father, David Bethell, died on 23 October 1998, around the time the relationship between Sam and Diana began. Various estate, trust and company arrangements had been made so that the land and associated farm stock and plant passed from one generation to primarily the male heirs of the next.

[4] A lawyer for the family, Ben Tothill, set out the history of the farm’s ownership. It is unnecessary for me to detail that history. When the Stumpy Trust acquired Timpendean Farm, Sam acquired a debt from the Stumpy Trust for $3,600,000 and…

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 Bethell v Bethell

Details

AGLC: Bethell v Bethell [2018] NZHC 3171
Case: [2018] NZHC 3171
Decision Date: 4 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a property settlement dispute between Diana Bethell and Samuel Bethell. The issues before the court were whether the Judge had correctly categorised certain assets as relationship property and whether the Stumpy Trust, established by Samuel's father, was a nuptial settlement. The court found that the Judge had not erred in admitting evidence from Sam's accountant, and that the debt on the current account from the Stumpy Trust to Sam was relationship property. The court also found that the residual debt from Sam's investment in Hussey Developments was his personal debt and not to be brought into account equally with Diana under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Stumpy Trust was found to be a nuptial settlement for the purposes of the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and the court exercised its discretion under s 182 to resettle $300,000 held to the credit of the Stumpy Trust in Duncan Cotterill's Trust Account to a new discretionary trust for the benefit of Diana and her children.

Orders