Hampton v Rennie - [2020] NZHC 3153

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, 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 NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2020-443-018

[2020] NZHC 3153

BETWEEN
W J HAMPTON

Appellant

AND

T L RENNIE

First Respondent

AND

C W HAMPTON

Second Respondent

AND

L RENNIE

Third Respondent

Teleconference: 12 November 2020

Appearances:

Appellant appears in Person

J Moore for the First Respondent

No appearance by or for the Second Respondent R Standring for the Third Respondent

M Cochrane as Lawyer for the Child

Judgment:

30 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application to strike out appeal)

[1] The respondents, supported by lawyer for the child, Mr Cochrane, apply to strike out the appellant’s appeal under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016.1

1 This document has been anonymised (fictionalised) in accordance with Family Court protocol.

HAMPTON v RENNIE [2020] NZHC 3153 [30 November 2020]

[2] The notice of appeal was filed by Mr Hampton, who is based in Australia, on 7 July 2020 (dated 11 June 2020) in relation to a decision of the Family Court of 3 April 2020.2 Mr Hampton also applies for leave to appeal out of time. The Family Court decision related to Mr Hampton’s grandson who is presently living with his maternal grandmother, the third respondent, in New Zealand.

[3] The background giving rise to the appeal was set out in my minute of 15 September 2020 as follows:3

[2] [The child] lives in New Zealand with his maternal grandmother, [the third respondent], the third respondent. He has lived with her and her partner since 2013 initially in Australia and since 2018 in New Zealand. [The child] is now aged 10 years, his date of birth was 3 August 2010.

[3] [The child’s] mother and father (first respondent and [second respondent] are largely out of the picture due to difficulties they have had, or are having, with drugs and mental health issues.

[4] [The applicant4] applied for the return of [the child] to Australia under The Hague Convention. This application was dismissed by the Family Court on 5 July 2017. The appeal from that decision was dismissed by the High Court on 25 October 2017.

[5] [The applicant] applied for leave under s 139A to apply for a parenting order and for appointment as a litigation guardian for his son, [the second respondent], [the child’s] father. These applications were heard in the Family Court on 3 April 2020 following a two-day hearing. ...

…

[7] An additional matter of whether [the applicant] wished to pursue an application as an additional guardian so he might seek to change [the child’s] surname to [“Hampton”] was dealt with by allowing [the applicant] to advise the court if he intended to pursue the application no later than 14…

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 Hampton v Rennie

Details

AGLC: Hampton v Rennie [2020] NZHC 3153
Case: [2020] NZHC 3153
Decision Date: 30 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, W J Hampton, the paternal grandfather of a child living in New Zealand, filed an appeal against a Family Court decision. The appeal was filed by Mr Hampton, who resides in Australia, on 7 July 2020, concerning a decision made by the Family Court on 3 April 2020. The Family Court decision related to Mr Hampton's grandson, who is living with his maternal grandmother in New Zealand. The respondents, supported by the lawyer for the child, applied to strike out the appellant's appeal under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolved around whether the appellant's appeal could be struck out under the High Court Rules 2016 and whether the appeal was filed within the required time frame. The court considered the criteria for strike-out applications and the importance of the issues involved in the appeal.

The High Court, presided over by Grice J, found that the appeal should not be struck out. The amended notice of appeal, filed with the assistance of a lawyer, set out arguable grounds for appeal that were not clearly untenable. The court also noted that the delays in filing the documents were not significant and that the issues involved were important for the long-term welfare of the child and his relationship with his paternal family. The appeal was dismissed on the condition that it would be moved on to a hearing quickly and be strictly confined to the issues set out in the amended notice of appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application to strike out the appellant's appeal, but the matter was to be expedited, and the appeal would be confined to the issues set out in the amended notice of appeal. The court also directed the parties to file any costs application and supporting memorandum within a specific timeframe.

Orders