Heatley v Heatley - [2012] NZHC 2728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-2592 [2012] NZHC 2728

BETWEEN KATHERINE MARY HEATLEY Applicant

ANDCRAIG LEONARD HEATLEY Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2012

Counsel: DAT Hollings QC and I Hikaka for Applicant
AE Hinton QC for Respondent
DS Alderslade and JF Anderson for parties to be joined

Judgment: 18 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 October 2012 at 3.30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Lee Salmon Long, P O Box 2026, Auckland for Applicant Gilbert Walker, P O Box 1595, Auckland for Respondent Chapman Tripp, P O Box 2206, Auckland 1140 for Trustees (Email: doug.alderslade@chapmantripp.com )

Copy to: Ms DAT Hollings QC debhollings@xtra.co.nz
Mr I Hikaka Isaac.hikaka@lsl.co.nz
Ms AE Hinton QC anne.hinton@xtra.co.nz
Ms JF Anderson JFA@shortlandchambers.co.nz

KATHERINE MARY HEATLEY V CRAIG LEONARD HEATLEY HC AK CIV-2012-404-2592 [18 October
2012]

[1] This proceeding was commenced in the Auckland Family Court and transferred pursuant to an order made by Fogarty J under s 22(3) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act).[1] He held that the Family Court Judge had erred in refusing to transfer the proceeding.

[1] KMA v CLH [2012] NZLR 688.

[2] The proceeding in the Family Court comprised what was described as “a relatively standard application” seeking relief under the Act.[2] There was also an application for an order imposing a remedial constructive trust over the assets of various trusts and a separate application for orders under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.

[2] At [9].

[3] The applicant applies to add as parties to the proceedings the trustees of eight trusts against which she seeks relief or which may be affected by the claims against the respondent. It is accepted that joinder is appropriate: the trustees have an interest in property that would be affected,[3] and that their presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually adjudicate on and settle all questions involved in the proceedings.[4] However, there are differences between the parties as to the basis on which joinder should be ordered, in particular, whether the order should be associated with a direction that the applicant file a statement of claim setting out the basis of her claim against the trusts and the relief sought.

[3] Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 37.

[4] High Court Rules, r 4.56(1)(b)(ii).

[4] At the first case management conference in this Court I made an order by consent that the applicant file points of claim. This has been filed. It sets out in considerable detail the basis of the applicant’s claim under the Act and also in relation to the various trusts and trust property. In addition to the constructive trust claim in claim under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act, the points of claim allege that the trusts are the alter ego of the respondent and are shams. The respondent has
filed a comprehensive reply to the points of claim.

[5]…

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 Heatley v Heatley

Details

AGLC: Heatley v Heatley [2012] NZHC 2728
Case: [2012] NZHC 2728
Decision Date: 18 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Katherine Mary Heatley versus Craig Leonard Heatley was heard in the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The case was transferred from the Family Court. The applicant, Katherine Heatley, sought relief under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and other related claims against the respondent, Craig Heatley. She also sought to join the trustees of eight trusts as parties to the proceeding, arguing that their presence was necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the claims. The trustees, however, argued that a statement of claim should be filed against them, separate from the points of claim already filed by the applicant. The central issue for the court was whether the points of claim filed by the applicant were sufficient as a pleading against the trustees or whether a separate statement of claim was required.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules and the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. It noted that proceedings transferred to the High Court under section 22(5) of the Act continue as if properly commenced in that court, but it was not clear whether a statement of claim was required in such circumstances. The court also examined the principles established in previous cases, such as Redding v Redding, where it was held that proceedings under the Act are normally conducted on minimal pleadings, with the substantive details fleshed out through affidavits. However, the court recognised the need for a framework to properly identify and respond to the issues. The court concluded that while a fully particularised pleading was necessary, the points of claim already filed by the applicant sufficiently outlined the claims against the trustees and could serve as a surrogate for a statement of claim, subject to any deficiencies being remedied by an application for further particulars.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the trustees be joined as parties to the proceeding and that the points of claim already filed by the applicant would constitute her pleading of the case against both the respondent and the trustees. The court's reasoning was based on the need to avoid having two separate documents pleading the multiple overlapping claims, and the fact that the points of claim, while not perfect, sufficiently outlined the basis of the applicant's claims against the trustees. The court emphasised that the nomenclature of the document (whether it is called a points of claim or a statement of claim) did not affect its purpose and function in the proceeding.

The final orders of the court were that the trustees be joined as parties to the proceeding and that the points of claim already filed by the applicant would constitute her pleading of the case against both the respondent and the trustees. The court left it open for the trustees to apply for further particulars if they considered the points of claim deficient in any way.

Orders