Groombridge v Blanche - [2020] NZHC 2394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2033

[2020] NZHC 2394

BETWEEN
HENRY GEORGE JAMES

GROOMBRIDGE by his litigation guardian Pamela Peijie Ma

Plaintiff

AND

ELEANOR BLANCHE

Defendant

Hearing: 11 August 2020

Counsel:

C Cai and E Y Y Ho for plaintiff P J Stevenson for defendant

Judgment:

15 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 September 2020 at 3:00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Douglas Burgess, Auckland
Focus Law, Auckland

Counsel: P J Stevenson, Barrister, Auckland

GROOMBRIDGE v BLANCHE [2020] NZHC 2394 [15 September 2020]

Introduction

[1] Eleanor Blanche and Henry Groombridge were married on 13 March 2004 and separated on 14 March 2007. On 11 April 2007, they entered into a relationship property agreement pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Mr Groombridge alleges that that agreement has been breached. He seeks specific performance and damages. Because Mr Groombridge lacks capacity, his current wife, Pamela Ma, has been appointed as his litigation guardian.

[2] Ms Blanche has applied to the Court to remove Ms Ma as Mr Groombridge’s litigation guardian on various grounds, including that Ms Ma’s interests conflict with those of Mr Groombridge. The removal application is opposed by Mr Groombridge/Ms Ma.

Background

[3] The relationship property agreement records that Mr Groombridge is entitled to reside in a Newmarket apartment owned by Ms Blanche (or a comparable apartment) for the rest of his life. Ms Blanche also agreed to maintain Mr Groombridge “in a similar lifestyle to that he currently enjoys”, by meeting his housing, food, utilities and other expenses. The agreement makes clear, however, that Ms Blanche is not required to maintain any other person with whom Mr Groombridge should choose to live. They are to meet their own share of living expenses.

[4] The issues at trial will include the correct interpretation of the agreement, whether it has been varied, and whether it has been breached.

[5] On 28 July 2009, Mr Groombridge and Ms Blanche’s divorce was finalised. On 19 November 2009, Mr Groombridge and Ms Ma married. Ms Ma and Mr Groombridge lived together at the Newmarket apartment from 2009 until 2017. In August 2017, however, Mr Groombridge was diagnosed with dementia, following his admission to hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[6] On his release from hospital Mr Groombridge was admitted to a secure dementia unit in a Bupa rest home. He was subsequently transferred by Ms Ma to two further rest homes before Ms Ma took him home in March 2020 to live with her. Mr Groombridge is currently living full time with Ms Ma.

[7] In September 2017, Ms Blanche stopped making regular monthly payments to Mr Groombridge. The following month Ms Ma was evicted from the Newmarket apartment by Ms Blanche. In December 2017 the apartment was sold. On 29 April 2018 Ms Ma was appointed by the Family Court as…

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 Groombridge v Blanche

Details

AGLC: Groombridge v Blanche [2020] NZHC 2394
Case: [2020] NZHC 2394
Decision Date: 15 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Groombridge v Blanche involved a dispute over a relationship property agreement between the parties, Eleanor Blanche and Henry Groombridge. Groombridge alleged that Blanche had breached the agreement, and he sought specific performance and damages. Because Groombridge lacked capacity, his current wife, Pamela Ma, was appointed as his litigation guardian. Blanche applied to the court to remove Ma as Groombridge's litigation guardian, arguing that Ma's interests conflicted with Groombridge's. The removal application was opposed by Groombridge and Ma. The court had to decide whether Ma was able to fairly and competently conduct proceedings on behalf of Groombridge, whether Ma had interests in the proceeding that were adverse to those of Groombridge, and what other factors were relevant to an assessment of what was in the best interests of Groombridge.

The court found that Ma was able to fairly and competently conduct proceedings on behalf of Groombridge. Although Ma's characterization of the relationship property agreement appeared to be an interpretation of the agreement, this did not disqualify her from acting as litigation guardian. Additionally, although Ma had previously made poor decisions in separate proceedings where she was acting as litigation guardian for Groombridge, this factor must be weighed together with all other relevant factors in determining whether Ma was a suitable litigation guardian in this proceeding. The court also found that Ma did not have interests in the proceeding that were adverse to those of Groombridge. Ma's interests in the proceeding were aligned with those of Groombridge, and this case was analogous to previous cases where the litigation guardians' interests were aligned with those of the incapacitated persons they represented. Finally, the court found that other factors, such as Ma's devotion to Groombridge and her ability to conduct the proceeding competently, weighed in favor of her continuing as Groombridge's litigation guardian. The practical consequence of removing Ma as litigation guardian would likely be to bring the proceeding to an end and deprive Groombridge of access to justice, in the event that there was any merit in his claims.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Blanche's application to remove Ma as Groombridge's litigation guardian. The court found that Blanche had failed to establish that there was any proper basis for removing Ma. If costs could not be resolved between counsel, any memorandum on behalf of Groombridge/Ma was to be filed by 25 September 2020, and any memorandum on behalf of Blanche was to be filed by 2 October 2020.

Orders