Greig v Hutchison - [2015] NZHC 3067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-409-000301 [2015] NZHC 3067

BETWEEN
MS GREIG

Appellant

AND

MR HUTCHISON First Respondent

MRS HUTCHISON Second Respondent

MR HUTCHISON AND MS CHAPMAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE HUTCHISON TRUST

Third Respondent

CIV-2014-409-000302

BETWEEN MR HUTCHISON First Appellant

MS GREIG Second Appellant

ANDMRS HUTCHISON First Respondent

MR HUTCHISON AND MS CHAPMAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE HUTCHISON TRUST
Second Respondent

Hearing: 12 October 2015

Appearances:

J Wren for Ms Greig
H Cull QC and S van Bohemen for Mr Hutchison
J V Ormsby and M K Prendergast for Mrs Hutchison
A Corry for Representatives of the Hutchison Trust

Judgment:

4 December 2015

GREIG v HUTCHISON [2015] NZHC 3067 [4 December 2015]

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

(Note: The names of the parties to this litigation have been anonymised.) Introduction
[1] Mr Hutchison (the husband) and Ms Greig seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and Mrs Hutchison (the wife) (but only on a conditional basis) also seeks leave to cross-appeal a decision I gave in this Court on 17 June 2015. This decision related to an appeal to this Court against an earlier Family Court decision dividing relationship property following separation of the marriage between the husband and the wife.1 A major issue in this litigation was whether the husband was in a de facto relationship with Ms Greig, contemporaneous with his marriage to the wife of some
47 years.

[2] In my decision on the appeal to this Court largely I upheld the carefully reasoned judgment of Judge Walsh in the Family Court on the principal issues at stake.2 The facts and background to this matter are set out in my 17 June 2015
appeal judgment and I do not propose to repeat them here.3

Leave to appeal and cross appeal is sought

[3] Ms Greig and the husband now seek leave to appeal specific aspects of my

17 June 2015 appeal judgment to the Court of Appeal. From submissions, it seems the grounds advanced for their appeal can be aggregated to the following questions:

(i)whether the High Court misdirected itself as to the interpretation and application of section 2D of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) when determining that Ms
Greig and the husband were not in a de facto relationship;

1 Greig v Hutchison [2015] NZHC 1309 [High Court Decision].
2 [… v …] [2014] NZFC 2895 [Family Court Decision].
3 High Court Decision, above n 1.

(b)whether the High Court failed to consider evidence that Ms Greig had an equitable claim over the shares in the company concerned;

(c) whether the High Court failed to consider the implications of the husband’s and Ms Greig’s relationship from 2007 to 2012 on the status, value, and division of relationship property between the husband and the wife; and

(d)whether the High Court accordingly failed to consider and apply s 52A of the Act and, on the basis of what were said to be contemporaneous or successive…

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 Greig v Hutchison

Details

AGLC: Greig v Hutchison [2015] NZHC 3067
Case: [2015] NZHC 3067
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Greig v Hutchison, the High Court considered applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal by Ms Greig, Mr Hutchison, and Mrs Hutchison. The appeal related to a decision on dividing relationship property following the separation of Mr Hutchison and Mrs Hutchison. The key issue was whether Mr Hutchison was in a de facto relationship with Ms Greig during his marriage to Mrs Hutchison. The court had to decide whether to grant leave for a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, considering the substantial property involved, the need for finality, and whether the proposed appeal raised a question of law or fact capable of serious argument.

The court held that the threshold for a second appeal was high, requiring the appeal to raise a question of law or fact capable of serious argument and involve an interest of sufficient importance to justify the cost and delay. The court found that the issues had already been adjudicated twice, and the proposed grounds for appeal did not meet the requirements. The application for leave to appeal was refused. The conditional application for leave to cross-appeal by Mrs Hutchison was not pursued as the appeal by Ms Greig and Mr Hutchison was refused. Costs on the applications were reserved for a later decision.

Orders