Legal Research
Cases
Brown v Sinclair

Brown v Sinclair

Case [2016] NZHC 3196 22 December 2016

Jurisdiction

Standing

Res Judicata

Unconscionable Conduct

Abuse of Process

Specific Performance

Admissibility of Evidence

Family Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF PARTIES. ORDER PROHIBITING SEARCH, COPYING OR INSPECTION OF THE COURT FILES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT LEAVE OF A JUDGE ON AN APPLICATION MADE ON NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES. THIS IS AN ANONYMISED VERSION OF A JUDGMENT AND MAY BE
PUBLISHED IN THIS FORM: SEE PARA [202] AND FOOTNOTE 1 BELOW.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV 2013-470-419
CIV 2013-470-424
CIV 2013-470-425
CIV 2013-470-485
CIV 2013-470-495
CIV 2015-470-050

CIV 2015-470-069 [2016] NZHC 3196

BETWEEN
BARBARA BROWN

Applicant

AND

AARON SINCLAIR AND ORS Respondents

CIV 2015-470-104

BETWEEN BARBARA BROWN Plaintiff

ANDTAURANGA DISTRICT COURT AND ANOR
Defendants

CIV 2015-470-105

BETWEEN BARBARA BROWN Plaintiff

ANDTHE TENANCY TRIBUNAL AND ORS Defendants

BROWN v SINCLAIR AND ORS [2016] NZHC 3196 [22 December 2016]

Hearing: 31 October 2016

Counsel:

G C McArthur for Ms Brown
E M Eggleston for Mr Sinclair
No appearance on behalf of tenants
M J McKillop for District Court, Family Court, Tenancy
Tribunal
S T Scott, amicus curiae

Judgment:

22 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2016 at 3.00pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
CONTENTS

The system fails  [1] The applications  [13] The proceedings in outline  [20] The Brown v Sinclair proceedings
(a)      The relationship property and initial Domestic Violence Act
proceedings  [26] (b)      The Tenancy Tribunal decision  [56] (c)      Mr Sinclair’s application for “unless” orders  [58] (d)      The dissolution of marriage application  [62] (e)      Ms Brown’s applications for maintenance  [64] (f)       Mr Sinclair’s security for costs applications in the High Court       [68] (g)      The attachment order  [70] (h)      Review of Associate Judge Doogue’s orders  [73] (i)       Tenancy related proceedings in the High Court  [74] Analysis

(a)      Preliminary comments  [75]
(b)       Judicial review: legal principles  [84]
(c)       The individual claims
(i)       CIV 2013-470-425: Decisions of 10 October 2011,             [91]
22 December 2011, 21 February 2012 and 30 May 2012 (ii)   CIV 2013-470-424 and CIV 2013-470-485: Decisions
of 30 March 2012 and 21 May 2012  [127]
21 May 2012

(iii) CIV 2013-470-419: Decision of 14 May 2013 [134] (iv) CIV 2013-470-495: Decision of 12 June 2013 [143] (v) CIV 2015-470-050: Decisions of 11 July 2014, [153]
6 August 2014, 22 August 2014, 19 September 2014,
20 November 2014 and 6 March 2015

(vi) CIV 2015-470-105: Decision of Tenancy Tribunal [166]
of 10 April 2012

(vii) CIV 2015-470-104: Attachment order of 19 June 2014 [179]
(viii) CIV-2015-470-69: Decision of 18 March 2014, [189]
25 June 2014, 11 July 2014, 6 August 2014,
22 August 2014, 19 September 2014,
20 November 2014 and 6 March 2015

(d)      Subsequent transfer order of 15 July 2016  [190] Result
(a)      The applications for judicial review  [194]
(b)      Costs  [198] (c)      Public distribution of judgment  [201] Where to from here?  [204]

The system fails1

[1] Two people have been married for less than three years. They separate. One…

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 v Sinclair

Details

AGLC: Brown v Sinclair [2016] NZHC 3196
Case: [2016] NZHC 3196
Decision Date: 22 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved judicial review applications by Ms Barbara Brown against decisions made in the Family Court, District Court and Tenancy Tribunal proceedings involving her former husband, Mr Aaron Sinclair. The parties had been married for less than three years before they separated in early 2011. They filed cross applications under the Domestic Violence Act and for a division of relationship property. The proceedings became protracted and complex, involving multiple applications for protection orders and orders for security of costs. The High Court was asked to review a number of the Family Court's decisions. The Court considered the legal issues, including access to justice and the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside several of the Family Court's decisions and remitted the relationship property proceeding to be reheard. It also set aside the attachment order made by the District Court and dismissed the application for damages against the District Court. The Court declined to make an order for costs in the High Court, noting the hardship both parties had suffered in the litigation. The Court ordered that the judgment be published in an anonymised form, to highlight systemic issues in the Court process, while protecting the privacy of the parties.

Orders