[1] The plaintiff brings claims against the first and second defendants in this Court’s civil jurisdiction based on equitable estoppel, unconscionable conduct and conversion. The plaintiff also brings a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act
1976. The defendants have not filed statements of defence, nor have they taken steps to oppose the claims made against them. Accordingly, the claims have proceeded by way of formal proof.

[2] This dispute arises following the end of a de facto relationship between the plaintiff, Peter Ferreira, and the first defendant, Daniela Stockinger (now Mrs Galy).1
They are German nationals who were independently wealthy at the material times.2

During their relationship Mr Ferreira and Ms Stockinger spent substantial sums of money acquiring real and personal assets in foreign jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Some of those assets were acquired in the name of corporate entities. The parties spent substantial sums of money acquiring assets and financing an extravagant lifestyle, which included numerous overseas trips.

[3] The parties’ de facto relationship commenced in January 2004 and ended in May 2005. It then re-commenced in June 2005 and ran until November 2006. For some of the time during the course of their relationship Mr Ferreira and Ms Stockinger were present in New Zealand.

[4] A de facto relationship that is otherwise subject to New Zealand law and which lasts for less than three years is categorised as a relationship of short duration under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.3 There is no impediment in such cases to the parties bringing claims in the civil jurisdiction of the New Zealand legal
system.

1      Ms Stockinger has since married and is now known as Mrs Galy, however I shall refer to her throughout this judgment as Ms Stockinger as that is the name by which she was known at the material times.
2      Each now seems to be in financially strained circumstances.
3      Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 2E. Pursuant to s 14A of the Act, an order for the division of relationship property of a de facto relationship of short duration cannot be made under the Act
unless either there is a child of the relationship or the applicant has made a substantial contribution to the relationship, and the court is satisfied that failure to make an application would result in serious injustice. If these requirements are met then the share of each partner in the relationship property is to be determined in accordance with the contribution of each partner…

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 Ferreira v Stockinger

Details

AGLC: Ferreira v Stockinger [2015] NZHC 2916
Case: [2015] NZHC 2916
Decision Date: 20 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

**Parties and Dispute:**

Peter Ferreira, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Daniela Stockinger (now Mrs Galy) and Agape-High Holistic Horsemanship Limited (AHQ) in the High Court of New Zealand. Ferreira's claims include equitable estoppel, unconscionable conduct, conversion, and a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The defendants did not file statements of defence or take any steps to oppose the claims, leading to the proceeding being determined by formal proof.

**Legal Issues:**

The primary legal issues involved in this case are the jurisdiction of the New Zealand court to hear the case, the sufficiency of Ferreira's evidence to meet the legal standards required for the various claims, and the appropriateness of the relief sought under the Property (Relationships) Act.

**Court's Reasoning and Outcome:**

The court first addressed the jurisdictional issues, finding that Ferreira had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the court had jurisdiction over the defendants, particularly regarding the claims based on events occurring outside New Zealand. The court held that the form of the proceeding was inappropriate and that Ferreira had not sufficiently addressed the conflict of laws issues.

The court further examined Ferreira's evidence in detail, noting that it was not specific enough to establish the elements required for the equitable estoppel and unconscionable conduct claims. The court found that the claims were not well presented and that Ferreira had not provided reasoned arguments for why the court should ignore the separate legal identities of the companies involved.

Regarding the conversion claim, the court found that Ferreira had not established his right to immediate possession of the chattels in question, and therefore, the claim for conversion must fail. The claim was also poorly pleaded, lacking the necessary particularity.

Finally, the court dismissed the claims under the Property (Relationships) Act, finding that Ferreira had not established the necessary substantial contributions to the relationship and that his claims were logically contradictory given his pursuit of civil remedies.

**Final Orders:**

All claims against both defendants were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of both Daniela Stockinger and Agape-High Holistic Horsemanship Limited. The court found that the proceeding could be sealed in the usual manner as the defendants had not complied with the procedural requirements.

Orders