Emajor v Emajor

[2016] NZHC 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004164 [2016] NZHC 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

an application to enforce a foreign

judgment

BETWEEN

EMAJOR Plaintiff

AND

EMAJOR Defendant

Hearing:	23-27 May 2016
Appearances:	A Holgate for Plaintiff J K Goodall and A Mitra for Defendant
Judgment:	30 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment is delivered by me on 30 August 2016 at 11.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel:

A Holgate, Barrister, Auckland

J Goodall, Barrister, Auckland

EMAJOR v EMAJOR [2016] NZHC 2022 [16 August 2016]

Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1] Issues......................................................................................................................[4] Background.........................................................................................................[13]

Marriage ..............................................................................................................[14] Transfer of funds ..................................................................................................[17] House extensions ..................................................................................................[20] Separation ............................................................................................................[22] Family Court proceedings....................................................................................[26] Provisional order for custody and child maintenance .........................................[33] Hearings in the Family Court ..............................................................................[39] Family Court decision ..........................................................................................[55] Appeal to the Superior Court ...............................................................................[59] Maintenance payments made ...............................................................................[61] Change in circumstances .....................................................................................[63]

Were the judgments obtained by fraud?

Legal principles....................................................................................................[64]

Has fraud been proved? .......................................................................................[73]

Was the judgment obtained by fraud? ..................................................................[81]

Were the orders procured contrary to substantial justice?

Legal principles....................................................................................................[94]

Analysis ..............................................................................................................[101]

Is the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to enforce the Mexican

judgment excluded by the Family Proceedings Act 1980? ........................... [111]

Are the orders unenforceable because they are not for a specified

sum of money? .................................................................................................. [118]

Is enforcement limited to arrears? .................................................................[123] Is part of the claim barred by the Limitation Act 1950? ..............................[124] Result .................................................................................................................[125]

Addendum.........................................................................................................[128]

Introduction

[1]      The plaintiff, Ms Emajor,1  seeks  an  order declaring that  a judgment she obtained on 20 June 2007 from the Superior Court of Justice for the Federal District of Mexico City (the Superior Court) is  enforceable in New Zealand against the defendant, Dr Emajor.  The Superior Court upheld a decision of the Twenty Fourth Family Court in Mexico City (the Family Court) ordering Dr Emajor to pay 35 per cent of all his direct and indirect income to Ms Emajor as maintenance (25 per cent for their daughter and 10 per cent for Ms Emajor) or 7,000 pesos per month, whichever was the greater.   Ms Emajor also seeks judgment for arrears of maintenance calculated on this basis of approximately $262,000.

[2]      There is no dispute that the Mexican courts had jurisdiction in the matter. Indeed,  it  was  Dr Emajor  who  invoked  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Family  Court  in Mexico by initiating the divorce proceedings which ultimately led to the judgment of the Superior Court that Ms Emajor now seeks to enforce.   Both parties were legally represented throughout in both the Family Court and the Superior Court.

[3]      The general rule is that a final judgment given on the merits by a foreign court with jurisdiction to give that judgment is binding on the parties, whether it be right or wrong, except in very limited circumstances, including that it was obtained by fraud or contrary to substantial justice.   Once appeal processes have been exhausted in the foreign jurisdiction, the parties are entitled not to…