Bradford v Te Hei - [2022] NZHC 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2019-412-000126

[2022] NZHC 575

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under s 25(3) for division of property

BETWEEN

JONATHAN LEE BRADFORD

Applicant

AND

REANA GAYE TE HEI

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

D J More for the Applicant

L A Andersen QC and J W Clearwater for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J AS TO COSTS

[1] In a judgment of 16 December 2021, I decided how the parties should share in the value of the home acquired during a relationship of short duration.1 The claims judgments was given in proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). Ms Te Hei had also sought orders in the High Court for division of property under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) but those proceedings were ultimately stayed.

[2] In my judgment, I expressed a tentative view that costs should lie where they fall but the parties have not reached agreement. Ms Te Hei seeks costs on a 2B basis for the PLA proceedings. She refers to the 2B costs for the PRA proceedings but seeks

1 Te Hei v Bradford [2021] NZHC 3485.

BRADFORD v TE HEI [2022] NZHC 575 [25 March 2022]

an increase on those to cover the legal costs she has incurred or might incur. Mr Bradford says costs should lie where they fall but, if a costs order is to be made, he should be awarded costs as the successful party in Ms Te Hei’s proceedings under the PLA and her application for summary judgment.

[3] Mr Bradford asked the Court to determine costs without delay. By memorandum, his counsel advised the Court that the parties have reached agreement as to the basis on which Mr Bradford will be able to acquire Ms Te Hei’s interest in the property but indicated that an award of costs could prejudice his ability to do that. In response, through a memorandum from her counsel, Ms Te Hei suggested an order for costs could be made on terms where the amount due would be paid on terms that could be afforded by Mr Bradford.

[4] Ms Te Hei argues she was the successful party in the PLA proceedings and, if orders had been made under those proceedings, Ms Te Hei’s entitlement as to the home would have been less than she was entitled to in the PRA proceedings. She also says she was the successful party in those proceedings because, by consent, an order was made for the return of her chattels to her.

[5] Ms Te Hei argues that Mr Bradford unreasonably delayed resolution of the PRA proceedings through failing to recognise the way she contributed to the acquisition of the home by being liable on the mortgage, not accepting a Calderbank offer made on 2 July 2019 and not attending a settlement conference when there was an opportunity for such…

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 Bradford v Te Hei

Details

AGLC: Bradford v Te Hei [2022] NZHC 575
Case: [2022] NZHC 575
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nation J addressed the issue of costs in a property dispute between Jonathan Lee Bradford and Reana Gaye Te Hei. The court had previously decided how the parties should share in the value of a home acquired during their relationship. Te Hei sought costs on a 2B basis for the proceedings under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA), arguing she was the successful party in those proceedings and in her application for summary judgment. Bradford, on the other hand, argued costs should lie where they fell, or if a costs order was to be made, he should be awarded costs as the successful party in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) proceedings and Te Hei's application for summary judgment.

After reviewing the arguments and the circumstances of the case, Nation J found that Bradford was the successful party in the PLA proceedings. The court held that the proceedings under the PLA were unnecessary, and the parties could have resolved the matter in the Family Court under the PRA. Despite Te Hei's insistence on a 50% share of the property, the court ultimately decided that Bradford was entitled to a greater share based on his financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship. The court also noted that both parties could have resolved the matter earlier through constructive dialogue and engagement.

In light of the circumstances, Nation J concluded that it was appropriate for each party to bear their own costs. Neither party was required to pay costs to the other, and they were also to bear their own costs in relation to the memorandum filed over costs. The decision highlights the importance of engaging in constructive dialogue and exploring alternative dispute resolution methods to resolve property disputes in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Orders