Brown-Douglas v Hansford - [2024] NZHC 1554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-000029

[2024] NZHC 1554

BETWEEN
RENEE JEANETTE BROWN-DOUGLAS

Appellant

AND

AVON HANSFORD

Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2024

Appearances:

K L Hoult for Appellant

R P Sutton for Respondent

Judgment:

14 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 14 June 2024 at 11.00 am
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ……………………………..

BROWN-DOUGLAS v HANSFORD [2024] NZHC 1554 [14 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against a relationship property decision of the Family Court.1 At issue is whether there was a disposition of relationship property, a family home, under s 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA). Section 44C(2) provides for the Court to award compensation where a disposition of property to a trust has the effect of defeating a claim or rights of one of the partners.

[2] The other asset at issue is the yacht Windborne which is used for a charter business. The yacht was originally the separate property of Mr Hansford. Ms Brown- Douglas claims that 50 per cent of the value of the yacht Windborne (being $162,500), is relationship property pursuant to s 8(1)(ee) of the PRA. Alternatively, she seeks compensation under s 17 of the PRA (sustenance of separate property).

[3] There is also a post-separation adjustment issue (s 18B) that I need to address. Ms Brown-Douglas makes a claim under s 18B in relation to payments she made to the mortgage on the family home.

Factual background

[4] In 2002, Mr Hansford purchased the yacht Windborne. Before, during and after his relationship with Ms Brown-Douglas, Mr Hansford operated a charter business aboard the yacht. He was a sole trader. The current value of the yacht is
$325,000.

[5] In June 2005, Mr Hansford and his former wife, Ms Moore, became the registered proprietors of the property at 18 Carina Way, Whitianga (the Carina Way property).

[6] In December 2010, Ms Brown-Douglas settled the Albatross Trust. Ms Brown- Douglas and NP Legal Trustees Ltd are the trustees. The preferred beneficiary is Ms Brown-Douglas. The other beneficiaries are the children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren of Ms Brown-Douglas as well as any trust of which any of the beneficiaries are a beneficiary that the trustees have received written notice of

1 Brown-Douglas v Hansford [2022] NZFC 858.

(beneficiaries). The final beneficiaries are Ms Brown-Douglas’ children and grandchildren. Ms Brown-Douglas also has the power to nominate further beneficiaries in writing.

[7] In 2021, the Family Court determined that the parties were in a de facto relationship between April 2011 and September 2014.2 Each had been in a previous relationship prior to commencing their relationship together. When their previous separations were finalised, their respective positions concerning their relationship property were as follows:

(a)Ms Brown-Douglas received the settlement sum of $185,000 from the division of her relationship property with her ex-husband, Mr Stephen…

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 Brown-Douglas v Hansford

Details

AGLC: Brown-Douglas v Hansford [2024] NZHC 1554
Case: [2024] NZHC 1554
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Brown-Douglas v Hansford was heard by Justice Andrew and decided on 14 June 2024. The appeal was against a decision of the Family Court which had determined the division of relationship property between Ms Brown-Douglas and Mr Hansford following their separation. The central issues were whether there was a disposition of relationship property under s 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, whether the yacht Windborne was relationship property, and whether there should be compensation for post-separation contributions. The Family Court had awarded compensation to Mr Hansford under s 44C, held that the yacht Windborne was not relationship property, and declined to award compensation for post-separation contributions to Ms Brown-Douglas under s 18B.

Justice Andrew found that the Family Court did not have the power to make an order under s 44C as the disposition to the Albatross Trust was not a disposition of relationship property. The court held that the half-share of the property that was transferred to the Albatross Trust had never been part of the relationship property pool. Additionally, even if the court had the power, the exercise of the discretion under s 44C would have been plainly wrong. Regarding the yacht Windborne, Justice Andrew upheld the Family Court's finding that it was not relationship property and dismissed Ms Brown-Douglas's claim for compensation under s 17 of the PRA. Finally, Justice Andrew declined to disturb the Family Court's decision not to award compensation for post-separation contributions, finding that the discretion was not exercised in accordance with a wrong principle or was otherwise plainly wrong.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the court ordered that the net proceeds from the sale of the Carina Way property be divided 50 per cent to the Albatross Trust, 25 per cent to Mr Hansford, and 25 per cent to Ms Brown-Douglas. The appeal in relation to the yacht Windborne and post-separation contributions was dismissed. Justice Andrew also indicated that Ms Brown-Douglas was entitled to costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements if the parties could not agree on the costs.

Orders