Busch v Ireland

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA650/2014
[2015] NZCA 82

BETWEEN

ROLIEN GEERTRUIDA BUSCH
Applicant

AND

DENNIS PAUL IRELAND AND ANGELA CATHERINE IRELAND
First Respondents

STEPHEN JOHN GRANT AND DAVID JAMES SMILLIE

Second Respondents

Hearing:	16 March 2015
Court:	Randerson, Wild and French JJ
Counsel:	T J Shiels QC for Applicant L A Andersen for First Respondents J K Hambleton for Second Respondents (excused from attendance)
Judgment:	19 March 2015 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court ([2014] NZHC 1523) is granted.
BThe question on appeal is: Given the Family Court at first instance had made findings of credibility against the first respondents, did the High Court apply the correct approach on appeal?
CThe application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal is to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.
DThe first respondents are to pay costs to the applicant for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Solomons, Dunedin for Applicant
Antony Hamel, Dunedin for First Respondents
Gallaway Cook Allan, Dunedin for Second Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Rolien Geertruida Busch, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The High Court had previously dismissed Busch’s application in the Family Court. Busch's appeal was against Dennis Paul Ireland and Angela Catherine Ireland, the first respondents, as well as Stephen John Grant and David James Smillie, the second respondents. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court had correctly applied the appropriate legal approach in light of the Family Court's findings of credibility against the first respondents.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of appellate review and the standard of proof required on appeal. It examined whether the High Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and credibility findings made by the Family Court. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had indeed applied the wrong approach in its review of the Family Court's findings. The Court found that the High Court should have given proper weight to the Family Court’s assessment of the evidence and credibility of the parties involved. As a result, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal against the High Court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the applicant's request to adduce further evidence on appeal, deciding that this matter should be determined by the panel hearing the appeal. Additionally, the first respondents were ordered to pay costs to the applicant for the standard application on a band A basis, along with usual disbursements. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the correct legal principles when reviewing findings of credibility in family law matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established