Booth v Booth - [2019] NZHC 3445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-454-59

[2019] NZHC 3445

BETWEEN
JASON PAUL BOOTH

Applicant

AND

TANIA JAYNE BOOTH

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2019

Appearances:

J Maassen for applicant J Delany for respondent

Judgment:

19 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[1] The respondent, Ms Tania Booth (Tania), seeks an order transferring this proceeding pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 commenced by the applicant, Mr Jason Booth (Jason), from the High Court to the Family Court. The proceeding was originally commenced in the Family Court in July 2017. It was transferred to this Court pursuant to s 38A of the Property (Relationships) Act by Judge Smith in a decision dated 15 June 2018. The reason the Judge transferred the proceeding is clear from his Honour’s judgment. The couple’s principal relationship property consists of shares in a company by the name of Poplar Road Farms Ltd. The Judge was aware that that company owed a substantial debt to Jason’s father from whom it had purchased the family farm, and that Jason’s father was proposing to commence proceedings in this Court for an order for the rectification of a deed recording the terms of the loan, which would have the effect of increasing the company’s debt to Mr Booth Snr and correspondingly reducing the value of the shares owned by Jason and Tania. The Judge concluded that as the parties’ relationship

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 3445 [19 December 2019]

property proceeding could not be resolved until the value of the company shares owned by Jason and Tania was determined, and there was a strong argument in favour of the transfer of the proceeding so that these matters could all be determined in one court.

[2] As it happens, following Judge Smith’s judgment, and the transfer of this Property (Relationships) Act proceeding to this Court, not only were proceedings commenced by Mr Booth Snr for the rectification of the deed, but Tania Booth commenced proceedings in this Court for an order pursuant to s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 in which she alleged that the loan arrangements constituted a nuptial settlement caught by that provision and sought relief.

[3] This Court was thus seized of all three proceedings. They were set down together for a case management conference on 4 December 2018. At that conference I made directions for the disposal of them.

[4] Mr Booth Snr’s rectification proceeding has now been resolved. It was determined by Clark J in a judgment dated 26 February 2019.1 The outcome was that the debt owed to Mr Booth Snr by Poplar Road Farms was increased from
$1,150,251.99 to $1,579,134.94. Tania’s Family Proceedings Act proceeding has also been resolved. The parties to that proceeding were Tania, Jason and Mr and Mrs Booth Snr. Jason sought summary judgment and Mr and Mrs Booth Snr sought an order striking out the proceeding on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed…

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 Booth v Booth

Details

AGLC: Booth v Booth [2019] NZHC 3445
Case: [2019] NZHC 3445
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Booth v Booth involves Tania Booth applying for an order to transfer proceedings from the High Court to the Family Court. Tania seeks the transfer of her former husband Jason Booth's proceeding under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, which was initially brought in the Family Court and subsequently transferred to the High Court by Judge Smith on 15 June 2018. The main issue before the court was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to transfer the proceeding back to the Family Court. Additionally, the court needed to determine if such a transfer was appropriate in the interests of justice.

The court considered the arguments from both parties and concluded that there was no jurisdictional impediment to transferring the proceeding back to the Family Court. The court found that section 38A(4) of the Property (Relationships) Act, which provides that any proceedings transferred to the High Court continue in that court as if they had been properly commenced there, effectively treated the proceeding as if it had been filed in the High Court. This, combined with the deeming provision in rule 189(2) of the Family Court Rules Act 2002, granted the High Court jurisdiction to transfer the proceeding to the Family Court.

In deciding whether the transfer was appropriate, the court weighed the arguments for and against the transfer. Tania's counsel argued that the remaining proceedings, including the Property (Relationships) Act proceeding and Tania's Family Proceedings Act proceeding (if successful on appeal), as well as Tania's spousal maintenance application, were all matters suited to the Family Court. Tania's counsel also pointed out the significant burden the litigation was placing on the Booth family, and that transferring the proceedings to the Family Court would help alleviate this burden and reduce litigation costs. On the other hand, Jason's counsel argued that the High Court was already familiar with the case and well-positioned to deal with the remaining matters. The court found that the reasons for the initial transfer were no longer valid, and that transferring the proceedings to the Family Court would be in the interests of justice and ensure a speedy and inexpensive resolution of the remaining issues.

The court ordered the transfer of the proceeding to the Family Court and reserved costs, indicating that Tania, as the successful applicant, was likely entitled to costs on a 2B basis. The court encouraged counsel to resolve the costs issue between themselves, with the option to revert to the court if necessary.

Orders