Carter v Carter

[2015] NZHC 3182

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO

11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2015-488-53 [2015] NZHC 3182

BETWEEN

NATALIE JANE CARTER

Appellant

AND

JOHN FRANCIS CARTER Respondent

Hearing:	11 December 2015
Appearances:	L J Postlewaight for Appellant S Henderson and G Coutts for Respondent
Judgment:	14 December 2015

FINAL JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against refusal to sanction relocation of children]

Thisjudgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2015 at 1 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

CARTER v CARTER [2015] NZHC 3182 [14 December 2015]

[1]      This judgment determines two appeals.

[2]      The  appeal  under  CIV-2015-488-053  relates  to  a  judgment  delivered  by Judge Lindsay in the Family Court on 21 April 2015.1    In that judgment the Judge declined to grant the appellant, Mrs Carter, permission to relocate to Melbourne with the five children of her marriage.   She also discharged existing interim parenting orders, and made new interim parenting orders in their place.

[3]      The appeal under CIV-2015-488-138 relates to a second judgment issued by Judge Lindsay at the request of the parties on 8 September 2015.2   In that judgment the Judge discharged the interim parenting orders she had made on 21 April 2015, and replaced them with final parenting orders.

[4]      Following a hearing that occupied three days in September 2015, I delivered an  interim  judgment  on  12  October 2015 in which I tentatively concluded that relocation was appropriate.3     I based that decision largely on factors that had not been in existence when Judge Lindsay refused to permit relocation to occur.  In my judgment I directed that Mrs Carter was to file a further affidavit outlining the arrangements she proposed to make in relation to the issues of accommodation and education for the children in Melbourne.  I then conducted a further hearing on 11

December 2015 to deal with these issues.  During that hearing Mrs Carter was cross- examined  in  some  detail  by Mr  Carter’s  counsel,  Mr Henderson, regarding her proposals.

[5]      I  am  now  required  to  make  a  final  decision  in  relation  to  the  issue  of relocation.  In doing so I do not propose to re-traverse the issues canvassed in my interim judgment.  Instead I turn directly to the issues addressed at the hearing on 11

December 2015.

1      C v C [2015] NZFC 2406.

2      C v C [2015] NZFC 7654.

3      Carter v Carter [2015] NZHC 2486.

Travel arrangements

[6]      Mrs Carter has booked and paid for flights to Melbourne for herself and the children, together with their New Zealand nanny, on 16 January 2016.  Mrs Carter’s mother will also be accompanying them to Melbourne.

Sale of the home

[7]      The parties anticipate that the family home will be listed for sale in January

2016.  Mrs Carter has undertaken to ensure that the property is well presented for sale.  Present indications are that the property is likely to fetch a favourable price.

Employment

[8]      Mrs Carter proposes to take up her new role with her existing employer on 2

February 2016.  In order to make up for the extended family leave she has recently taken  and  her  under-performance  over  the  last  12  months,  she  has  agreed  to undertake  additional  responsibilities  until  the  end  of  2016.    She  is  confident, however, that these will not require her to spend more than two to three days per week on work-related activities.

[9]      Mr  Carter  is  sceptical  regarding  this,  and  believes  his  wife  will  end  up spending a considerable proportion of her time on employment-related matters. Should that happen, he fears that the children will spend an excessive amount of time being cared for by a nanny and/or by family members and friends.

[10]     Mrs Carter denies that this will occur.  Having worked for the same company for approximately 15 years, she believes she will be in a position to control the time she is required to devote to work-related activities.  Although her employer plans to open a new office in Melbourne in the near future, Mrs Carter does not consider that this development will require her to spend additional time on work-related activities. If  her  employer’s  needs  increase,  she  believes  they  can  be  met  through  the recruitment of additional staff.

[11]     Mrs Carter considers that she will still be able to do most of her work from home.  She acknowledges, however, that her new role will require her to meet clients

regularly on a face to face basis.  She says she will be able to do this during school hours and with the assistance of a nanny to look after Carl, who is now 14 months of age.

[12]     I accept Mrs Carter’s evidence on this point.  I do not consider that the risk that Mrs Carter may be required to devote increased time to her employment is such that it should cause me to reconsider my decision that relocation is appropriate and in the best interests of the children of the marriage.

Motor vehicle

[13]     Mrs Carter has the use of a motor vehicle in Melbourne.  She intends to sell the car that she uses in New Zealand when she leaves the country.  She will put the funds thereby realised towards purchasing a second vehicle in Melbourne.  She says she will therefore be in a position to make a vehicle available to Mr Carter if he chooses to remain in New Zealand and elects to travel to Melbourne regularly to see the children.

Accommodation

The interim position

[14]     From the airport Mrs Carter’s father will take Mrs Carter and the children to her parents’ home in Aspendale, a suburb in Melbourne.  Mrs Carter’s parents have confirmed that they will vacate this property in favour of their daughter and the children.  The property is a four bedroom home and is fully furnished to cater to the family’s needs.

[15]     Mrs Carter’s parents have agreed to permit their daughter and the children to live there as long as may be required.  Mrs Carter expects to reside in her parents’ home for no longer than six weeks before moving into permanent rental accommodation.   During this period her parents will live with a friend who has a home a short distance away.   They will therefore be available to help settle the children into their new environment.

Long term accommodation

[16]     Mrs Carter has begun searching for long term rental accommodation.   She believes she will have no difficulty in locating a property within her desired price range.  At this stage she is looking at properties in the vicinity of the school where she proposes to send the children.   She has expressed a willingness, however, to consider renting a house in any area that Mr Carter might nominate.  She does so in the hope that Mr Carter will see fit to relocate to Melbourne rather than remain in New Zealand.   Mrs Carter sees it as being a distinct  advantage if she and her husband can reside in close proximity so that parenting arrangements can be undertaken with as little travel as possible.

[17]     To date Mr Carter has not engaged with the issue of accommodation other than to dismiss suggestions Mrs Carter has made regarding areas of Melbourne in which he might be able to live.  Mr Carter should obviously, however, have a further opportunity to have input into this issue should the Court determine that relocation is appropriate.

Childcare

[18]     Mrs  Carter  anticipates  that  the  childrens’  current  nanny  will  stay  in Melbourne for approximately two weeks to help the children settle in.  She will be eligible to receive Government support in respect of childcare arrangements.   For that reason she proposes to engage a nanny in Melbourne to assist in looking after the younger children.  She is happy for Mr Carter to be involved in the selection of the new nanny if he wishes to be so.

Education

[19]   Mrs Carter has provided confirmation from the school that Christopher previously attended in Melbourne that he and Nadine will be eligible to enrol at the school for the 2016 school year.  This begins on 1 February 2016.  She proposes to enrol Timothy and Nancy at the kindergarten previously attended by Timothy when the family lived in Melbourne at the time of Carl’s birth.

[20]     Mrs Carter says she is not wedded to these arrangements.  If Mr Carter would prefer to live in another area of Melbourne, she says she would be happy to enrol the children at schools or kindergartens in that area.  She confirms that she accepts Mr Carter should be fully involved in the selection of the school and kindergarten that the children are to attend.

Mr Carter’s concerns

[21]     Mr Henderson advances his opposition to relocation on two bases.  First, he argues that Mrs Carter’s proposals are at this stage so vague and uncertain that the Court cannot approve them.  In particular, he submits that the Court should withhold its approval to relocation occurring until there is a much greater degree of certainty regarding issues such as accommodation and parenting arrangements.

[22]     Mr Carter acknowledges, however, that it will not be difficult for Mrs Carter to find accommodation and educational facilities suitable for the children’s needs. His second and real concern relates to the more fundamental issue of whether relocation will be in the children’s best interests. At present, Mr and Mrs Carter care for the four older children on a four day/five day rotation.  They share equally in the care of the children over the school holidays.  Mr Carter is concerned at the prospect that the parenting arrangements that Mrs Carter has suggested will significantly reduce the role that he presently plays in the childrens’ lives.

[23]     More particularly, Mr Carter believes that Mrs Carter wishes to relocate to Melbourne so that she can more readily control the extent to which the children are able to have contact with him.   He firmly believes that she will not abide by any orders that the Court might make in relation to the issue of contact, and that he will eventually be squeezed out of the childrens’ lives.   Mr Carter believes that Mrs Carter is likely to manufacture disputes or call into question Mr Carter’s ability to care for the children adequately.  Mr Henderson advises me that Mr Carter “lives in absolute certainty” that this will result in the parties again being plunged into litigation, this time in Melbourne, if relocation is permitted.

[24]     Mr  Henderson  draws  support  for  this  prospect  from  numerous  previous incidents in which Mrs Carter has thrown obstacles in Mr Carter’s path in relation to

the issue of contact.  He says that many of his client’s complaints have been upheld during hearings in the Family Court.  He contends that, viewed cumulatively, these demonstrate that the Court cannot trust Mrs Carter to honour any agreement that she might reach with her husband, or any order that the Court might make.

[25]    Furthermore, Mr Henderson submits that Mr Carter will be placed at a significant  disadvantage  if  he  is  required  to  become  involved  in  litigation  in Australia.  This is because the Family Court of Australia will not have the benefit of the information contained in the files held by the Family Court in New Zealand.  The courts in Australia will not therefore have the institutional knowledge held by the New Zealand courts relating to the difficulties Mr Carter has faced in the past and the manner in which the New Zealand courts have dealt with them.

[26]     I acknowledge that there is presently uncertainty in Mrs Carter’s proposal because of the fact that she has not yet secured permanent accommodation.   That issue obviously affects the overall issue of relocation because it also affects the educational arrangements that can be made in respect of the children.  Furthermore, it will have a significant impact on Mr Carter’s contact with the children in the event that he elects to relocate to Australia.  If Mrs Carter decides to live in a suburb that is too expensive for him to afford, Mr Carter may be required to reside a significant distance away.   This will have an obvious impact on the ease with which he can maintain contact with the children.

[27]     I   consider,   however,   that   the   uncertainty   regarding   the   issue   of accommodation flows mainly from the fact that Mrs Carter has not yet committed herself to a lease.   That is not surprising, because it is difficult for Mrs Carter to make a decision  as  to where she and  the children  should  live until  she knows whether Mr Carter intends to relocate to Melbourne as well.

[28]    During the original hearing before me Mr Carter indicated under cross- examination that he would do everything in his power to relocate to Melbourne if the Court decided that relocation was in the childrens’ best interests.  In the affidavit he filed before the second hearing Mr Carter stops short of resiling from that position. He has not, however, confirmed an intention to relocate.  Rather, he says only that he

“request[s] that the children be raised by myself, their father, in New Zealand, as

opposed to nannies and elderly grandparents but no father in Melbourne”.

[29]     I do not accept Mr Carter’s argument that the current proposals are too vague for the Court to sanction.   I consider that Mrs Carter has put forward a concrete proposal dealing with all of the matters the Court needs to address.  Although Mrs Carter  has  not  yet  settled  upon  long  term  accommodation,  she  has  set  out  her proposal in clear terms and Mr Carter has not provided any counter-proposal.   I accept, however, that Mr Carter should have a further opportunity to provide input into the issue of where the children should reside in Melbourne.  If he is not prepared to take that opportunity, Mrs Carter will have no option but to obtain long term rental accommodation without the benefit of her husband’s input.  Mr Carter will then be required to reach his own decision regarding relocation having regard to the accommodation arrangements his wife has made.

[30]     I accept, however, that there is a basis for Mr Carter’s wider concern.   I canvassed this to some extent in my earlier judgment.4     I therefore acknowledge there is some  risk that Mrs Carter may seek to use the move to Australia as a means by which to reduce the extent of Mr Carter’s contact with the children.

Decision:  relocation

[31]     Although I acknowledge the concerns expressed by Mr Carter, they are not sufficient, either individually or cumulatively, to persuade me that I should revisit my tentative conclusion regarding the issue of relocation. I remain of the view, for the reasons expressed in my interim judgment,5 that relocation is in the best interests of the children.

[32]     I consider that this Court can address Mr Carter’s concerns adequately by making unambiguous orders regarding the minimum level of contact that Mr Carter must be permitted to have with the children after they move to Melbourne.   In addition, Mrs Carter will need to give written undertakings regarding her willingness

to comply with the Court’s orders.  She must also undertake that, in the event that

4      Carter v Carter, above n 3 at [75]-[78] and [108-[109].

5      At [94]-[109].

litigation ensues in Australia, she will provide the courts in Australia with copies of all relevant decisions made by the courts in New Zealand in relation to the parties and their children.

[33]     That being the case, I propose to allow the appeals and to set aside the order prohibiting Mrs Carter from moving the children from New Zealand.  It will also be necessary, however, to make orders relating to the contact that Mr Carter will be able to have with the children once they move to Australia.

Contact

[34]     As I have already observed, at present the parties care for the children using a nine day cycle under which Mrs Carter looks after the children for five days and Mr Carter then looks after them for the next four.

Contact if Mr Carter does not relocate

[35]     The level of contact that Mr Carter will be able to have once the children move to Melbourne will obviously depend significantly on whether he elects to relocate as well.  If he does not, the extent to which he maintains contact with the children will be subject to the strictures imposed by international travel.  Although Melbourne is just a four hour flight from Auckland, Mr Carter must first travel approximately two hours to get to Auckland Airport.  This means he would need to leave home at least three and a half hours before departure.  Given that the cheapest flights generally leave early in the morning, he may be required to stay overnight in Auckland before the date of travel. When he arrives in Melbourne, Mr Carter will be required to travel from the airport to the suburb in which Mrs Carter and the children are residing.  This journey could easily take up to two hours depending on the time of day at which the journey is made.

[36]     Mrs Carter proposes that her husband see the children in Melbourne every second weekend, with the first visit occurring on the weekend of 21 January 2016. She suggests that Mr Carter look after the older four children from after school on Thursday until Sunday evening.     She would be willing to provide Mr Carter with her motor vehicle for the duration of his stay.

[37]     As  I  indicated  during  the  hearing,  I  have  significant  reservations  as  to whether Mr Carter could realistically maintain a travel schedule that required him to travel  to  Melbourne  on  a  fortnightly  basis.    On  a  long  term  basis  it  would undoubtedly  be  gruelling  physically,  mentally  and  financially.    Nevertheless  I propose to make orders so that Mr Carter knows where he stands in the event that he decides not to relocate to Melbourne.

[38]     Mr Carter will be entitled to have contact with the four older children on a fortnightly basis from after school on Thursday until 6 pm on Sunday evening. Those times may obviously need to be varied  to fit in with Mr  Carter’s travel schedule.

[39]     On each occasion Mr Carter is to provide Mrs Carter with at least one weeks notice of his intention to travel to Melbourne to have contact with the children.  He is to make his own way from the airport to the house, where Mrs Carter is to supply him with a vehicle for his exclusive use for the duration of the visit.  Mr Carter and members of his wider family are then to have exclusive use of Mrs Carter’s house until he leaves for the airport on Sunday.

[40]     Mr Carter is to have contact with Carl for at least fifteen hours during each visit.  If the parties cannot reach agreement regarding the hours during which this is to occur, Mr Carter is to look after Carl between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.30 pm on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the visit.  On each occasion Mrs Carter shall be responsible for delivering Carl to the family home and for picking him up at the end of the visit.

[41]     One of the most contentious issues between the parties relates to whether Mr Carter should be required to have the support of a family member or nanny on occasions when he looks after all five children.  Mrs Carter’s concern in this context arises because Mr Carter suffers from sleep apnoea, and she says she has observed him to fall asleep with Carl in his arms or on his lap.  She is therefore concerned for Carl’s safety, particularly during busy periods when Mr Carter has been required to deal with the demands of the other four children. Although she stops short of saying the Court should impose a condition requiring Mr Carter to have the support of

another person when he looks after all of the children, Mrs Carter says that support of this type would be ideal.  For that reason Mrs Carter suggested that her husband be responsible for caring for Carl under the supervision of a nanny of a member of his family between the hours of 10 am and 5 pm each day.

[42]     I acknowledge Mrs Carter’s concern, and Mr Carter must do so as well.  Both parents have an overriding obligation to ensure that Carl’s safety is never compromised.   I consider Mrs Carter’s concern can be met by providing for Mr Carter to have relatively short periods of contact with Carl at a time of day when Mr Carter is less likely to be fatigued.  The orders that I make are designed with that object in mind.  This outcome also accords with the opinion that Ms Clough gave in evidence at the first hearing.  She said that Mr Carter should have frequent contact with Carl for short periods of time.  I therefore decline to make an order requiring Mr Carter to have the support of a nanny or family member when he has contact with Carl.  Mr Carter should bear in mind, however, Mrs Carter’s offer to make a nanny available to provide him with assistance when he looks after Carl.

[43]     I direct  that,  provided  Mr  Carter  can  travel  to  Melbourne during school holidays other than Christmas holidays, the parties are to share equally in the care of the children during these periods.  The accommodation and transport arrangements applicable in respect of weekend visits are also to apply to school holiday visits in respect of the four older children.  During school holiday visits Mr Carter is to have contact with Carl on alternate days between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.30 pm.

[44]     During the Christmas holidays Mrs Carter is to pay for herself and the five children to travel to New Zealand each year for a three week period between 15

December and 15 January.   She shall be responsible for delivering the four older children to Mr Carter directly from the airport in Auckland.  Whilst in New Zealand, Mr  Carter  shall  have  the  care  of  those  children  for  the  first  and  third  weeks. Christmas Day shall be shared between Mr and Mrs Carter, with Mr Carter to have them until 1.30 pm.  He is to be responsible for delivering the children to Mrs Carter at 1.30 pm at an address nominated by her.

[45]     During Christmas holidays Mr Carter is to have contact with Carl on an unsupervised basis between 9.30 am and 2.30 pm each day.   Mr Carter shall be responsible for picking Carl up each day at 9.30 am and delivering him back to Mrs Carter at 2.30 pm.

Contact if Mr Carter relocates to Melbourne

[46]     If Mr Carter relocates to Melbourne, Mrs Carter proposes that the four older children spend every second weekend with him from after school on Friday to 4 pm on Sunday.  In weeks where the children are not with Mr Carter during the coming weekend, the two oldest children are to spend each Tuesday night with him.  The other two children would then spend the Wednesday night with Mr Carter.

[47]     Mr Carter has not put forward any alternative proposal, so the Court is left to make its decision without his input.  Both parties acknowledge that the move back to Melbourne will result in a significant period of readjustment for the four older children.  For that reason I do not consider that a nine day rotation as is presently the case would be in the best interests of the children.   They will require a period of comparative stability whilst they settle into new school and home environments. Changes in accommodation arrangements midweek are likely to disrupt that stability. For that reason I accept that Mrs Carter’s proposal is sensible in the short to medium term.

[48]     Mrs Carter suggests that Mr Carter has contact with Carl on a supervised basis for six hours at a time three times each week.  I consider that contact should take place for shorter periods but on an unsupervised basis.  Mr Carter will therefore have unsupervised contact with Carl between the hours of 9.30 am and 1.30 pm on three occasions each week.  If the parties cannot reach agreement regarding the days on  which  this  shall  take  place,  it  shall  take  place  on  Monday, Wednesday  and Saturday.  When Carl turns three years of age, the periods of contact shall increase to four per week provided Mr Carter’s commitments at that time permit him to have contact with Carl that frequently.  In the absence of agreement, the extra period of contact shall take place between 9.30 am and 1.30 pm each Friday.

[49]     When Carl turns two years of age he shall spend one night per week with Mr Carter. That contact shall be on an unsupervised basis, but shall take place on a night when Mr Carter is not looking after any of the other children.

[50]     During school holidays other than Christmas, Mr and Mrs Carter shall share the care of the four older children equally as is presently the case.  During Christmas holidays the same arrangements shall apply as will apply in the event that Mr Carter elects not to relocate to Melbourne.

Funding for contact and re-location

[51]     If Mr Carter elects not to re-locate, Mrs Carter has offered to meet the costs of his travel to Melbourne on a fortnightly basis.  Mr Carter made it clear when he gave evidence at the first hearing that he saw innumerable problems with that type of arrangement.  I agree.

[52]     Mr Carter also said he believed it would cost him approximately $20,000 to relocate to Melbourne, and that he had no means of meeting that cost.  With the help of her parents, Mrs Carter has now paid the sum of $20,000 into a bank account to meet her husband’s relocation costs.   She has also confirmed that she would be prepared to make a further sum of $5000 available to enable Mr Carter to meet the cost of travelling to Melbourne to have contact with the children during the period whilst he decides whether or not to relocate to Melbourne himself.

[53]     During the most recent hearing I put a further proposal to Mrs Carter and I took her to agree with it.  This involves Mrs Carter making available to Mr Carter a total sum of $25,000.  Of this, the sum of $5000 is to be treated as an advance to be repaid to Mrs Carter in the event that the sale of the home produces sufficient funds to enable Mr Carter to repay that amount either in full or in part.  If the sale of the home produces insufficient funds for this to occur, Mrs Carter is to be deemed to have forgiven the debt.

[54]     Mr Carter is to be entitled to use the full fund of $25,000 to meet his travel expenses in the event that he elects not to relocate to Melbourne.  Alternatively, and acknowledging that it may take some time for Mr Carter to relocate, he may also use

the fund to meet both travel and relocation expenses.   Importantly, however, this payment is in full and final settlement of any obligation Mrs Carter may have to meet her husband’s travel and relocation expenses.  Once the fund is exhausted, Mr Carter will be obliged to meet his own travel costs if he elects not to relocate to Melbourne.

Orders

[55]     In order to give effect to these arrangements it will be necessary to allow both appeals, and in particular to set aside the final parenting orders that the Judge made at the parties’ request on 8 April 2015.  In addition, it will be necessary to set aside the existing order preventing Mrs Carter from removing the children from New Zealand.  I make orders accordingly.

[56]     I further direct that Mrs Carter is to file and serve within seven days a written undertaking in which she agrees to comply in all respects with any orders made by this Court and the Court of Appeal.   In the event that litigation should ensue in Australia, Mrs Carter is also to undertake that she shall provide the Family Court of Australia with copies of all judgments issued by the Family Court, this Court and the Court of Appeal in relation to the proceedings in New Zealand involving herself and Mr Carter.

[57] In addition, Mrs Carter’s counsel is to file and serve a memorandum within seven days confirming that a total sum of $25,000 has been lodged in a bank account to meet Mr Carter’s travel and relocation costs as set out at [54].

[58]     Mr Carter shall have until 5 pm on Friday 18 December 2015 to notify Mrs Carter (or her counsel) of the suburb or suburbs in which he would prefer her to obtain long term accommodation and schooling for the children.  Mrs Carter shall ensure that she obtains long term accommodation in one of those nominated suburbs or, if she is unable to do so within a reasonable period, in such other suburb as Mr Carter shall approve.  If Mr Carter fails to provide Mrs Carter with initial advice by

18 December, Mrs Carter shall be free to obtain accommodation in a suburb that enables her current proposal for the schooling of the children to proceed.

[59]     Leave is reserved to both parties to apply generally in the event that further orders are necessary to give effect to or implement the proposals sanctioned by the Court in this judgment.

[60]     I direct Ms Postlewaight to lodge an order for sealing within three working days.  I further direct that Ms Postlewaight is to arrange for the sealed orders to be registered in Australia forthwith so that they are enforceable in that country.

Stay of execution

[61]     Through his counsel, Mr Carter has indicated that he proposes to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.   He seeks an opportunity to apply for a stay of execution of this judgment to enable that to occur.

[62]     I direct that any application for stay of execution is to be filed and served, together with concise submissions, no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 15 December

2015.  Submissions in opposition are to be filed and served no later than 12 noon on Wednesday 16 December.   I will then issue a decision based on the submissions filed.

Costs

[63]     As  the  successful  party  in  both  appeals  Mrs  Carter  would  ordinarily  be entitled to an award of costs on a category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.  During the latest hearing, however, Mrs Carter confirmed in cross-examination that she is now in receipt of legal aid.  For that reason I reserve costs at this stage.

[64]     Any memorandum in support of an award of costs should be filed and served no later than 8 February 2016, with any memorandum in opposition to be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.   Memoranda are not to exceed seven pages in

length.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Henderson Reeves. Whangarei

Counsel:

L J Postlewaight, Whangarei
Hugh J Drummond, Whangarei