Legal Research
Cases
Blake v Blake

Blake v Blake

Case [2022] NZCA 327 21 July 2022

Matrimonial Property

Valuation of Assets

Contribution to Increase in Value

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA641/2021
[2022] NZCA 327

BETWEEN	MAYSIE BLAKE Appellant
AND	BARTLEY BLAKE First Respondent
AND	HMR LIMITED Second Respondent

CA645/2021
BETWEEN	BARTLEY BLAKE Appellant
AND	MAYSIE BLAKE First Respondent
AND	HMR LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	French and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	D A T Chambers QC for Appellant in CA641/2021 and First Respondent in CA645/2021 J R Billington QC and K M Lellman for Respondents in CA641/2021 and Appellant in CA645/2021
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 July 2022 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application by Mr Blake for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 756 is declined.
B The application by Mrs Blake for special leave to appeal against the same judgment of the High Court is declined.
CThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Table of Contents

Para No.

Introduction [1]
Background to the appeal against the interim judgment [12]

Valuation of shareholding  [13]
Fixing of contributions to increase in value  [32]
Declining to vest company asset in Mrs Blake  [37]

Leave granted in the High Court [40]
Application by Mr Blake for special leave to appeal additional issues [43]

Valuation of HMR's shares in SCL  [47]
Application of s 44  [52]
Determination of contributions to the increase in value — s 9A(2)  [72]

Mrs Blake’s application for leave to appeal an additional issue [85]
Outcome [106]

Introduction

Mr and Mrs Blake[1] have been embroiled in protracted litigation under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) following the breakdown of their marriage.
[1]Blake is not the parties’ real surname. Fictitious names have been used as was done in the Family and High Courts in order to protect sensitive personal and commercial information.
They were married in July 1986 and have four children. They separated in July 2016. The value of the property at stake is very significant, in the millions of dollars.
The proceedings began in the Family Court where judgments were issued by Judge Wills.[2] Both Mr and Mrs Blake appealed to the High Court. The appeal was heard by Whata J. The Judge issued two judgments. The first judgment was called an interim judgment[3] and the second the “economic disparity” judgment.[4]
[2]Blake v Blake [2020] NZFC 212 [First Family Court judgment]; and Blake v HMR Ltd [2020] NZFC 211 [Second Family Court judgment].
[3]Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 756 [Interim judgment].
[4]Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 2590, [2021] NZFLR 696 [Economic Disparity judgment].
Both parties then applied to Whata J for leave to appeal certain aspects of each judgment to this Court. Leave was required because an appeal in this Court would be a second appeal.[5]
[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 60.
Whata J subsequently granted leave to appeal to this Court on a limited number of issues.[6]
[6]Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 2583 [First leave judgment].

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 Blake v Blake

Details

AGLC: Blake v Blake [2022] NZCA 327
Case: [2022] NZCA 327
Decision Date: 21 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal of both parties, Maysie Blake and Bartley Blake, against the judgment of the High Court in Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 756 was declined. The appeal involved the breakdown of the marriage of Mr and Mrs Blake, who had been married in 1986 and separated in 2016. The proceedings began in the Family Court and both parties appealed to the High Court. The appeal was heard by Whata J, who issued two judgments. Both parties then applied to Whata J for leave to appeal certain aspects of each judgment to the Court. Leave was required because an appeal in this Court would be a second appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the proposed additional appeal grounds did not raise questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument involving some interest public or private of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay in extending the scope of the appeal. The Court of Appeal declined the applications for leave to appeal by both parties, and there was no order as to costs.

Orders