Clayton v Clayton - [2013] NZHC 309

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2011-463-000808 [2013] NZHC 309

BETWEEN MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON First Appellant

ANDMCGLOSKEY NOMINEES LIMITED Second Appellant

ANDCHELMSFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED Third Appellant

ANDDEBORAH JOAN VAUGHAN Fourth Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED
Fifth Appellant

ANDMARK ARNOLD CLAYTON Sixth Appellant

ANDBRYAN WILLIAM CHESHIRE AND MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON
Seventh Appellant

ANDMELANIE ANN CLAYTON Respondent

Hearing: 13-15 August 2012

Counsel: R Harley for First Appellant
CR Carruthers QC for Second to Seventh Appellants
JH Hunter and J Hosking for Respondent

Judgment: 22 February 2013

MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON V MELANIE ANN CLAYTON HC ROT CIV-2011-463-000808 [22 February
2013]

JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 February 2013 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Quigg Partners, P O Box 3035, Wellington 6140 for Appellants
(Email: davidquigg@quiggpartners.com
Phillips Hosking, P O Box 227, Rotorua for Respondent
(Email: law@phillipshosking.co.nz )

Copies to: RP Harley, P O Box 5241, Wellington 6145 for First Appellant
(Email: rpharley@harleyschambers.com )
CR Carruthers QC, P O Box 305, Wellington 6145 for Second – Seventh Appellants
(Email: crc@crcarruthers.co.nz )
JH Hunter, 152 Anzac Avenue, Auckland 1010 (Email: jane@hunterlaw.co.nz )
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1] Factual background [3] Pre-nuptial agreement [6] Valuation of former matrimonial home [15] Relationship property under sections 9A(1) and (2) [23]
Valuation issues [45] EBITDA [49] Multiple [55]

Appeal by trustees [65]

Vaughan Road Property Trust [68]
Discussion [78]

Remaining trusts – setting aside dispositions [92]

Stacey Clayton Education Trust (SCET) [93]
and Anna Clayton Education Trust (ACET)

Denarau Resort Trust [103] Sophia No 7 Trust [111] Chelmford Trust [118] Lighter Quay 5B Trust [125]
Cross-appeal [129] Section 182 claim [137] Section 44C [144]

Summary [150]

Result [152]

Introduction

[1] The first appellant (Mr Clayton) is the former husband of the respondent (Mrs Clayton). The remaining appellants hold property in trust in which Mrs Clayton claims an interest under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act). The appellants appeal against aspects of the decision of Judge Munro in the Family Court at Rotorua. She was asked to determine a range of issues arising under the Act. For her part, Mrs Clayton cross-appeals against Judge Munro’s refusal to make an award in relation to one of the trusts.

[2] In summary, the issues requiring determination are whether the Judge erred in:

(a) Setting aside a pre-nuptial agreement made by the parties. (b) Fixing the value of the matrimonial home.
(c) Finding that Mrs Clayton is entitled to share equally in the increase in

value of Mr Clayton’s business assets.

(d) Fixing the value of Mr Clayton’s business interests.

(e) Finding that Mrs Clayton is entitled to share equally in the net assets of trusts to which property had been transferred.

(f) Refusing to make an award in relation to one of the trusts known as the Claymark Trust.

Factual background

[3] Mr and Mrs Clayton…

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 Clayton v Clayton

Details

AGLC: Clayton v Clayton [2013] NZHC 309
Case: [2013] NZHC 309
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clayton v Clayton is a case involving a dispute over the division of assets following the dissolution of a marriage. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The primary issues in the case were whether a prenuptial agreement between the parties should be set aside, the valuation of the former matrimonial home, and the division of business assets and trusts established by the husband during the marriage. The wife, Melanie Clayton, argued that the prenuptial agreement was unfair and should be set aside, and sought a share in the husband's business assets and trusts. The husband, Mark Clayton, and several trusts argued against these claims. The court found that the prenuptial agreement should be set aside as it would cause serious injustice. The court also found that the wife was entitled to a share in the husband's business assets and certain trusts, but not in others. The court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the case to the Family Court for further consideration of the valuation of the matrimonial home and the orders sought in relation to certain trusts. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Orders