Dixon v Kingsley - [2015] NZHC 2044

NOTE: CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER MADE AT [67]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1350 [2015] NZHC 2044

BETWEEN
JAKE DIXON

Appellant

AND

CAROL KINGSLEY Respondent

Hearing: 3 August 2015

Counsel:

K A Muir for Appellant
D T Chambers QC for Respondent

Judgment:

27 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] What principles govern documentary discovery in relationship property cases in the Family Court? How should those principles be applied? Those are the primary questions in this appeal.

[2] The parties were formerly husband and wife. They married in 1994, but separated in April 2012. The major item of relationship property in issue is shares held by Ms Kingsley in a company.1

[3] Ms Kingsley held 30 per cent of the company’s shares at the time of separation. She concedes those shares are relationship property. But on 30 July
2012 she acquired a further 10 per cent shareholding from three departing

shareholder/employees. The status of these shares is in issue.

1 See [6]–[11] below. The names of the parties have been anonymised, following the approach adopted in the Family Court

DIXON v KINGSLEY [2015] NZHC 2044 [27 August 2015]

[4] Relationship property proceedings were filed in the Family Court in 2013. In February 2015 Mr Dixon filed an application for particular discovery against Ms Kingsley and non-parties (including the company). In particular he sought discovery relating to employment issues in 2012 between the company and the three shareholder/employees, documents concerning changes to the current account balances of shareholders in the company since 1 January 2012, bank statements evidencing accounts into which dividends were paid or funds credited from Ms Kingsley’s current account or paid to Ms Kingsley or an associated company, and documents connected with a successful tender by the company awarded in June
2012.

[5] As will become apparent in reasons that follow, Judge D A Burns either declined to grant this discovery, or granted it on a more restrictive basis than Mr Dixon had sought.

Confidentiality

[6] At the commencement of the hearing before the Judge in April, counsel for Mr Dixon addressed the Court on anonymisation of parties’ names. This was to protect the parties’ two children and for other privacy reasons including commercial sensitivity. An earlier decision of the Court on interim maintenance had been anonymised using the names “Jake Dixon” and “Carol Kingsley”. The Judge indicated that his decision would be anonymised. He said he was likely to issue a draft and allow the parties to propose redactions.

[7] Judge Burns’ decision was issued in May. It was not anonymised. The omission was taken up by counsel for Mr Dixon. Judge Burns then issued a minute. It notes that a request had been made in Court to anonymise the judgment – and that it had been granted. The Judge invited counsel to submit a redacted version for approval. It is unclear whether that invitation was taken up.

[8] Counsel for Mr Dixon submitted his synopsis of appeal submissions in this Court using…

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 Dixon v Kingsley

Details

AGLC: Dixon v Kingsley [2015] NZHC 2044
Case: [2015] NZHC 2044
Decision Date: 27 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dixon v Kingsley was an appeal heard by the High Court in Auckland. The parties were formerly husband and wife and had two children. The primary issue in the appeal was the principles governing documentary discovery in relationship property cases in the Family Court. The appeal also considered how these principles should be applied in practice. The High Court found that the principles governing discovery in relationship property litigation should be robust, not unduly onerous, reasonably necessary at the time sought, and tailored to the needs of the Court. The Court held that the appeal judge had erred in his approach to discovery in three areas. First, the Court found that tailored discovery should be ordered in relation to documents concerning the circumstances of the acquisition of an additional 10 per cent shareholding by Ms Kingsley in the company. Secondly, the Court held that the appeal judge should not have declined to order discovery of all bank statements for accounts into which Ms Kingsley or her partner had a beneficial interest. Thirdly, the Court held that the appeal judge should not have declined to order discovery of Ms Kingsley’s partner’s bank statements. The appeal was allowed in these respects, and leave was reserved for the appellant to make further application for tailored discovery in relation to Ms Kingsley’s s 18B claim. The identities of the parties were anonymised, and a confidentiality order was made. Costs were reserved.

Orders