Campbell v Goldie - [2019] NZHC 1573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2018-404-002874

[2019] NZHC 1573

IN THE MATTER Of an appeal under s 39 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and s 124 of the District Courts Act 2016

BETWEEN

ROBIN MCGREGOR CAMPBELL

Appellant

AND

DENISE KAY CAMPBELL GOLDIE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 June 2019

Appearances:

L La Mantia for Appellant K Puddle for Respondent

Judgment:

8 July 2019

Reissued:

21 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 08 July 2019 at 10am and Re-delivered on 21 August 2019
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
L La Mantia, Barrister, Auckland Martelli McKegg, Auckland
K3 Legal Limited, Auckland

CAMPBELL v CAMPBELL GOLDIE [2019] NZHC 1573 [8 July 2019]

Introduction

[1] Robin Campbell wants to appeal costs decisions in two related proceedings brought by his former wife, Denise Goldie, regarding the division of their relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA). The litigation started as a single proceeding but was split at Mr Campbell’s request so that the part that did not require Ms Goldie to give evidence could continue when Ms Goldie was on medication and unable to cope under cross examination.

[2] The proceeding that was heard first – before Judge Maureen Southwick QC – concerned whether Mr Campbell’s powers in relation to the family trust that owned the house in which Mr Campbell and Ms Goldie had lived before and during their marriage constituted a property interest for the purposes of the PRA. Judge Southwick held that they were not.1

[3] The proceeding that was heard second – before Judge A P Goodwin – concerned the duration of the relationship of Mr Campbell and Ms Goldie and, as a consequence, which assets were relationship property and which were separate property, and the division of assets held to be relationship property. Judge Goodwin held that the only qualifying relationship between Mr Campbell and Ms Goldie for the purposes of the PRA was from March 2005 to January 2010, as argued by Mr Campbell. As a consequence of that determination, Judge Goodwin held that many of the assets under consideration were separate property. However, certain assets were agreed to be relationship property and Judge Goodwin ordered accordingly. The effect of those orders was that Mr Campbell was to pay Ms Goldie approximately $65,000, subject to final adjustments relating to the value of Ms Goldie’s Kiwisaver account.2

[4] Mr Campbell considered he was the successful party in both proceedings and applied for costs in relation to each. However, both Judge Southwick and Judge Goodwin held that costs should lie where they fall.3

1      Campbell Goldie v Campbell [2016] NZFC 4757.
2      Goldie v Campbell [2017] NZFC 1811.
3      Campbell Goldie v Campbell [2018] NZFC 7105; Campbell Goldie v Campbell [2018] NZFC 9052.

[5] Mr Campbell did not, within the appeal period of 20 working days stipulated in the…

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 Campbell v Goldie

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Goldie [2019] NZHC 1573
Case: [2019] NZHC 1573
Decision Date: 8 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robin McGregor Campbell sought to appeal a decision of Denise Kay Campbell Goldie regarding the division of their relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Mr Campbell wanted to appeal decisions relating to costs made by two Family Court judges, Judge Maureen Southwick QC and Judge A P Goodwin. The court had to decide whether Mr Campbell's application for an extension of time to appeal the decision of Judge Southwick was justified and whether Judge Goodwin erred in his decision on the award of costs. The court found that the application for an extension of time was unjustified and that Judge Goodwin erred in his decision on the award of costs. The court set aside Judge Goodwin's decision and awarded Mr Campbell costs of $37,765.70 plus disbursements of $16,869.07. The costs of the appeals and the application for an extension of time were to lie where they fell.

Orders