Blake v Blake - [2021] NZHC 3575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2020-463-18

[2021] NZHC 3575

BETWEEN
BARTLEY BLAKE

Appellant

AND

MAYSIE BLAKE

First Respondent

HMR LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

J Billington QC and K Lellman for Appellant

D Chambers QC and E Armstrong for First Respondent

Judgment:

21 December 2021

ANONYMISED JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Re final quantification

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December at 5.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Tompkins Wake, Tauranga

LeeSalmonLong, Auckland

BLAKE v BLAKE [2021] NZHC 3575 [21 December 2021]

Introduction

[1]I have issued three judgments in this matter:

(a)an interim judgment allowing, in part, Mr and Mrs Blake's respective appeals against the decision of the Family Court, leaving open, among other things, the issue of economic disparity;1

(b)a final judgment addressing economic disparity, with quantification of my orders following conferral between the parties as to that quantum;2 and

(c)a judgment granting Mr Blake's application for leave to appeal on specified issues.3

[2] This judgment records the final quantification of my orders and addresses Mrs Blake's application of leave in respect of the economic disparity judgment as well as anonymisation of the judgments.

Final quantification of orders

[3] In my final judgment assessing economic disparity in these proceedings, following my interim judgment of 12 April 2021, I made the following orders (as relevant):4
[57] I set aside the Family Court's economic disparity order and replace it with an order payable to Mrs Blake by Mr Blake calculated on the basis of an adjusted per annum income figure (post-tax) for Mr Blake of $400,000, in a sum to be finally quantified on the basis in [62] below.5

[58] I decline to make an order for interest in respect of the sums owing to Mrs Blake in the period between the hearing in the Family Court (29 April 2019) and the date of the Family Court's judgment (16 January 2020).

[59]I make orders for:

1      [Blake] v [Blake] [2021] NZHC 756 [Interim judgment].
2      [Blake] v [Blake] [2021] NZHC 2590 [Final (economic disparity) judgment].
3      [Blake] v [Blake] [2021] NZHC 25893 [Leave judgment].
4      I note the date of the Family Court judgment referred to at [58] is in error: it should read 15 January 2020. This is immaterial as the correct date is used below in my quantification.
5      For clarity, as noted above I make no order for interest on that sum.

(a)Interest at an agreed interest at a rate of 2.7 per cent per annum from the date of the valuation (31 March 2018) to the date of the Family Court hearing.

(b)Post-Family Court judgment interest at five per cent.6

(c)Post-judgment interest at five per cent for the period from 1 October 2021 until the date of final payment.

...

[4]Accordingly, as more information was needed, I also directed:

[62] In respect of the s 15 order and interest, 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 Blake v Blake

Details

AGLC: Blake v Blake [2021] NZHC 3575
Case: [2021] NZHC 3575
Decision Date: 21 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blake v Blake is an appeal by Bartley Blake against the decisions of the Family Court and the High Court regarding economic disparity in the context of a relationship property division. The first respondent is Maysie Blake, and the second respondent is HMR Limited. The dispute revolves around the final quantification of economic disparity and the appropriateness of the High Court's assessment of the economic disparity. The High Court was tasked with determining the final quantification of the economic disparity order and assessing Maysie Blake's application for leave to appeal the High Court's economic disparity judgment. The central legal issues were whether the High Court erred in its approach to the economic disparity assessment, particularly in treating the earnings and value accretion of HMR Limited and its subsidiaries as neutral, and whether the key person discount fully captured the disparity in income and living standards. The court also considered whether the decision to cap the disparity assessment at the age of 60 was appropriate, and whether Mr Blake's health and life expectancy were irrelevant to the assessment.

The High Court held that Maysie Blake's application for leave to appeal was appropriate as it proceeded on the basis that there was an even distribution of relationship property. The court outlined the appeal questions based on Maysie Blake's arguments, focusing on whether the High Court correctly treated the earnings and value accretion of HMR Limited as neutral, whether the key person discount accurately captured the disparity, and whether the decision to cap the assessment at age 60 was correct. The High Court granted leave to appeal on these specified issues. The court also addressed the final quantification of the economic disparity order, confirming the agreed interest rates and sums payable. The court concluded that anonymisation of the judgments was appropriate due to the intensely personal nature of the case and the potential for undue hardship if the parties' names were published.

The final orders included the quantification of the economic disparity sum and interest rates, and granted Maysie Blake leave to appeal specific issues regarding the economic disparity assessment. The judgments were to be anonymised to protect the privacy of the parties.

Orders