Harrison v Harrison - [2021] NZHC 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2078

CIV-2019-404-2566 [2020] NZHC 524

IN THE MATTER Of the Valerie Geard Trust

BETWEEN

PAULINE JANICE HARRISON

Plaintiff

AND

ADRIENNE HARRISON and GRAEME

ROSS HARRISON as trustees of the Valerie Geard Trust

Defendants

On the Papers: At Whangarei

Judgment:

16 March 2021

JUDGMENT (No. 3) OF POWELL J

[Application for Transcript]

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 March 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HARRISON v HARRISON (Judgment No. 3) [2020] NZHC 524 [16 March 2021]

[1] On 19 November 2020 I issued a judgment1 dealing with a number of interlocutory applications in relation to two proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Pauline Harrison:

(a) CIV-2019-404-2078 (“the 2078 proceedings”); and (b) CIV-2019-404-2566 (“the 2566 proceedings”).
[2]As a result of my decision:2

(a)The 2078 proceedings were struck out.

(b)The claims against the ASB Bank Limited in the 2566 proceedings were struck out.

(c)An extended order was made pursuant to s 166(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 preventing Ms Harrison from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on any matter the subject of proceeding in CIV-2019-404- 2566 or otherwise relating to or involving the Valerie Geard Trust, the Valerie Geard Waiheke Trust, or the applicants in either their capacity as trustees of those trusts or their personal capacity in a senior court, another court, or a Tribunal.

(d)Ms Harrison was ordered to pay security for costs in the 2566 proceeding in respect of each of the first, second, third and fourth defendants in the sum of $20,000 for each defendant, a total of $80,000, with the security to be paid within 28 days of the expiry of the order made pursuant to s 166(2).

[3] I subsequently issued a further judgment on costs, specifying various amounts to be paid by Ms Harrison.3

1 Harrison v Harrison [2020] NZHC 3066.
2 At [32].
3 Harrison v Harrison (Costs) [2020] NZHC 3505.

[4] Ms Harrison has appealed the substantive judgment and costs award and has made a formal application “for court transcript of electronic recording from the interlocutory hearing on 30 July 2020”. The other parties to the litigation do not oppose or otherwise abide the decision of the Court on the application.

[5] As Ms Harrison is aware, no transcript has been prepared for the hearing on 30 July 2020 and, in fact, I declined to direct the production of one following the hearing on 30 July 2020. Instead, at Ms Harrison’s request, a copy of the audio files for the hearing has already been provided as acknowledged in Ms Harrison’s application.

[6] The relevant principles were recently summarised by Gordon J in Wiki v NZ Police:4

Requests for access to court documents fall under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules).

As Ms Wiki was a party to this appeal, she has a general right to…

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 Harrison v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Harrison [2021] NZHC 524
Case: [2021] NZHC 524
Decision Date: 16 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pauline Janice Harrison brought proceedings against Adrienne Harrison and Graeme Ross Harrison as trustees of the Valerie Geard Trust. The proceedings related to the administration of the Valerie Geard Trust, and in particular, the terms of a life interest held by Pauline over a property in Waiheke Island. Pauline had brought two sets of proceedings, one in the High Court at Whangarei, and the other in the High Court at Auckland. In the Auckland proceedings, Pauline brought claims against the ASB Bank Limited in addition to the trustees. Powell J dismissed the proceedings brought by Pauline and made an order preventing her from bringing further proceedings in relation to the Valerie Geard Trust. The judge also ordered Pauline to pay security for costs.

Pauline appealed the substantive judgment and the costs award. In addition, she sought a transcript of the audio recording of the hearing on 30 July 2020. Powell J dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the application for a transcript. The judge held that there was no good reason in the interests of justice to order that a transcript be prepared and provided to Pauline. The substantive judgment and the costs award had been determined on the basis of the material placed before the court, and a transcript would not assist in determining the appeal.

Orders