Greig v Hutchison - [2015] NZHC 1309

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-409-000301 [2015] NZHC 1309

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

MR HUTCHISON AND MS CHAPMAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE H TRUST Second Appellant

ANDMRS HUTCHISON First Respondent

MS GREIG
Second Respondent

Hearing: 23 April 2015

Appearances:

S N van Bohemen for Mr Hutchison
J H Wren for Ms Greig
J V Ormsby, A Bayliss and M Prendergast for Mrs Hutchison

A M Corry for Trustees of the H Trust

GREIG v HUTCHISON [2015] NZHC 1309 [10 June 2015]

Judgment: 10 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1]

Background facts [3]

Approach on appeal [10]

These appeals [12]

Substantive appeal by Mr Hutchison, Ms Greig and the H Trust [18]

(A) The De Facto Relationship Issue [19]

Lack of financial dependence/interdependence [33]

Public image – did Ms Greg and Mr Hutchison present themselves as a couple to the world? [42]

Did the Judge misdirect himself on the law as to contemporaneous relationships? [51]

Did the Judge fail to give proper weight to the six months alleged exclusive de facto relationship in 1986? [77]

Conclusion on de facto relationship issue [81]

(B) The Realisation Issue [84]

Was the Family Court wrong to fix a value for the shares in the companies rather than to order a sale of the businesses? [84]

(C) The Valuation Issue [96]

(D) The Section 44C Issues – H Trust’s liability? [106]

(a) Order 16(b)(i) compensation for Glenda Drive, Queenstown, Kaipapa 2 and […] Main Road, Blenheim properties [107]

(b) Order 16(b)(ii) Compensation for Cashmere Road, Christchurch property [117]

(E) The Section 44C Issues – Was the quantum of compensation payable pursuant to s 44C fixed by the Judge wrong? [124]

Mrs Hutchison’s cross appeal [132]

Possible transfer to Mrs Hutchsion of ownership of Kaipapa 2? [134]

Family Court’s refusal to treat the incentive points earned by Mr Hutchison post-separation as relationship property? [142]

Summary and conclusions [161]

Outcome [162]

Orders [163]

Costs [166]

The Stay [168]

Introduction

[1] This case involves a number of appeals and a cross-appeal from decisions of the Family Court with respect to protracted relationship property proceedings initiated in 2008. One of the principal issues raised here concerns whether a husband and his long-serving employee of some 27 years were in a qualifying de facto relationship contemporaneous with his 47 year marriage (which finally ended in
2007). If so, relationship property implications arise in relation to this in terms of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA).

[2] After a trial occupying almost two weeks the Family Court found, in the decision which is the subject of…

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 1309
Case: [2015] NZHC 1309
Decision Date: 10 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from a decision of the Family Court in relation to protracted relationship property proceedings. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial judge was correct to find that the husband was not in a qualifying de facto relationship with his long-serving employee. The court considered the legal issues in relation to the de facto relationship issue, including the lack of financial dependence or interdependence between the parties, whether the parties presented themselves as a couple to the world, and whether the trial judge misdirected himself on the law. The court found that the trial judge did not err in finding that the relationship between the husband and his employee was not a de facto relationship. The court also addressed the valuation issue and the issue of compensation payable pursuant to section 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The final orders of the court were that the appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the stay of enforcement of certain orders was lifted.

Orders