[Blake] v [Blake] - [2021] NZHC 2590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2020-4630-18

[2021] NZHC 2590

BETWEEN
BARTLEY BLAKE

Appellant

AND

MAYSIE BLAKE

First Respondent

HMR LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 16 July and 16 September (via VMR) 2021

Counsel:

J Billington QC, K Lellman and L Gamble for Appellant D Chambers QC and E Armstrong for First Respondent

Judgment:

1 October 2021

ANONYMISED JUDGMENT WHATA J

Re economic disparity

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 October 2021 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Solicitors: Thompkins Wake, Tauranga

LeeSalmonLong, Auckland

BARTLEY BLAKE v MAYSIE BLAKE [2021] NZHC 2590 [1 October 2021]

Introduction

[1] In my interim judgment of 12 April 2021, I made findings as to the valuation and division of relationship property.1 Since then, some matters have been resolved by consent, which I address briefly below. However, I reserved my position on the issue of economic disparity.2 Mrs Blake also raised a further claim, namely the interest claimable in the period between the Family Court hearing and the release of the Family Court's decision.3 In this judgment I address those issues.

Admissibility of evidence

[2] Mrs Blake objects to evidence filed by Mr Blake. I have resolved to uphold that objection insofar as Mr Blake's new evidence seeks to introduce matters expressly excluded by this Court in a pre-hearing determination.4 I have, however, allowed specific parts of that evidence. My reasons are set out in a separate ruling, appended to this judgment for ease of reference as Appendix A.

Overview

[3] Mrs Blake claims that she is entitled to a disparity order reflecting the difference between her income and Mr Blake's full earning capacity, including from investment income derivable from a company owned by him, HMR Limited (HML) and its subsidiaries. Mr Blake says that Mrs Blake will derive substantial income from her share of the relationship property, which was valued by reference to the increase in the value of HML and its subsidiaries over the course of their marriage. He says that when that income is taken into account, there is no disparity in income or standard of living between the parties.

[4] In this judgment I resolve that insofar as the income-generating capacity of HML and its subsidiaries is shared between the parties on the division of the relationship property, that income is neutral as between them. I also find however,

1      [Blake] v [Blake] [2021] NZHC 756 [Interim judgment]. As noted in that judgment, the parties’ names and identifying features have been anonymised in this judgment and, where that is not possible (for example, property identifiers) redacted.
2      Under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
3      [Blake] v [Blake] [2020] NZFC 212 [Family Court judgment].
4      [Blake] v [Blake] [2020] NZHC 2227.

that because of the way the shares in HML's subsidiaries were valued-using a substantial discount to reflect key person risk,5 Mr Blake's full…

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 2590
Case: [2021] NZHC 2590
Decision Date: 1 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of [Blake] v [Blake], the High Court of New Zealand reviewed the valuation and division of relationship property, as well as the economic disparity order made by the Family Court. The court considered the admissibility of new evidence, the parties' positions on economic disparity, and the appropriate method for calculating such disparity. The Family Court's economic disparity order was set aside, and a new order was made based on the court's assessment of the parties' future incomes and the impact of the key person discount on Mr Blake's full earning capacity. The court also addressed issues of interest, the option to purchase the family home, and the equalising cash payment from one trust to another. The final disparity sum, along with interest payable, was to be quantified by the parties and confirmed in a joint memorandum. The court maintained that costs should lie where they fall, but granted the parties leave to file submissions on the matter.

Orders