Greaves v Baldwin

[2019] NZHC 3390

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-849

[2019] NZHC 3390

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an Appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Auckland

BETWEEN

PATRICK GREAVES

Appellant

AND

CECILIA BALDWIN

Respondent

Hearing:	9 December 2019
Appearances:	V A Crawshaw QC and T Townsend for Appellant P J Stevenson and S Carter for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2019 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GREAVES v BALDWIN [2019] NZHC 3390 [18 December 2019]

Table of Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................... [1]

The facts.................................................................................................................... [4]

Family Court proceedings....................................................................................... [17]

Appeal approach...................................................................................................... [33]

Issues....................................................................................................................... [36]

Is it open to Mr Greaves to seek to reclassify the income stream under the
Sovereign income protection policy?.................................................................. [37]

Was Creighton v Creighton correctly decided?.................................................. [42]

Are there circumstances justifying an unequal sharing of the post-separation
capitalised income protection payments?............................................................ [58]

Conclusion as to s 13........................................................................................... [70]

Was the Family Court wrong to rely on the date of separation value of the

Sovereign policy?................................................................................................ [71]

Did the appellant contribute after separation by his disability such that
compensation is payable under s 18B of the Act?............................................... [75]

Did the appellant’s serious health event dilute the ability to contribute to the
relationship?......................................................................................................... [82]

Was the respondent entitled to compensation under s 18B for care of the youngest child? [85]

Was the respondent’s occupation of the family home a matter which ought to have been considered under s 18B?...................................................................................... [94]

Summary of decision.............................................................................................. [101

Costs...................................................................................................................... [102]

Introduction

[1]                  Three years before separation, one of the parties to a marriage suffered a life- changing medical event. At the time, Mr Greaves was a CEO of a large organisation and the primary financial provider in the marriage. After the medical event, he could no longer work due to ongoing seizures and memory loss, among other debilitating symptoms. However, 12 months before the medical event, he had taken out income protection insurance with Sovereign. The insurer paid out under the policy, both by way of a lump sum payment which was applied to reduce a mortgage liability and thereafter by periodic payments, which continue subject to certain conditions.

[2]                  Are the periodic payments received after separation relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act)? This is the primary issue on appeal. Other ancillary issues flow from the outcome of this issue.

[3]                  To date, the periodic payments under the Sovereign income protection insurance policy have been classified as relationship property but received solely by Mr Greaves, and not accounted for since separation. He continues to receive monthly payments and will do…