Hildred v Strong - [2007] NZCA 475

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA287/05
[2007] NZCA 475
BETWEENGLORIA ANNE YVONNE HILDRED

Appellant

ANDSHARON ANN STRONG

Respondent

Hearing:12 September 2007

Court:Hammond, Robertson and Wilson JJ
Counsel:H A Cull QC and L Watson for Appellant

K B Johnston for the Respondent

Judgment:31 October 2007 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
BThe respondent is entitled to costs of $6,000 together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Robertson J)
Introduction
[1]        This is an appeal against the decision of MacKenzie J in which he held that a settlement agreement entered into between Gloria Hildred and Sharon Strong in June 2002 following mediation was the full and final settlement of all property and financial issues between them. This finding was subject only to an order under s 7(3)(c) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 (CMA) deleting references to shares in, and a loan to, a company - Outlook Resources Limited (ORL) - with which they had been associated.
Factual circumstances
[2]        The background was described by MacKenzie J in a way which has not been challenged:
[2]       ... The parties met in 1990. At that time the plaintiff [Ms Hildred] was living at 20 The Parade, Paekakariki, which she owned. The defendant [Ms Strong] was then employed by the Wellington Unemployed Workers Union (“WUWU”), and the plaintiff was engaged by WUWU as a tutor. She was hired by the defendant for that position, and soon after they entered into their relationship together. The defendant moved into 20 The Parade. Soon after, they agreed upon an equal joint ownership of that property, and entered into an agreement to that effect in August 1991. In about May 1993, they purchased 19 The Parade as tenants in common in equal shares. They entered into a property agreement on 20 May 1993 which recorded that the defendant had contributed more than the plaintiff, the figures in that agreement being subsequently varied. They sold that property in 1998, and shortly afterwards purchased 19 Wellington Road, as tenants in common in unequal shares, 40% for the plaintiff and 60% for the defendant. In about March 2001, they purchased 17 The Parade as tenants in common in equal shares.
[3]       For several years after the relationship commenced, the plaintiff and defendant were involved in running training courses, initially under the auspices of WUWU. In March 1991, a trust, known as the Unemployed Training Trust (“UTT”) was established. The defendant was the settlor. The original trustees were the defendant and Ms J L Marment. The plaintiff was appointed a trustee in place of Ms Marment in February 1992. Such of the assets of WUWU as were used in the provision of the training schemes were transferred to that trust. In March 1992, a company Outlook Resources Ltd (“ORL”) was established, the shares in which were initially held by UTT. The assets of UTT were transferred 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 Hildred v Strong

Details

AGLC: Hildred v Strong [2007] NZCA 475
Case: [2007] NZCA 475
Decision Date: 31 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hildred v Strong, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal against the decision of MacKenzie J, who held that a settlement agreement entered into between Gloria Hildred and Sharon Strong in June 2002 was the full and final settlement of all property and financial issues between them. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues were whether the settlement agreement could be set aside on the grounds of unconscionability, duress, misrepresentation, or mistake. The Court found that the agreement was binding and could not be set aside on any of the grounds argued. The Court emphasized that mediation is an alternative means of dispute resolution, and parties are generally bound by agreements reached through mediation. The Court also noted that parties who choose mediation must accept the risks associated with it, including the possibility of entering into an agreement that is not in accordance with the law. The Court rejected the argument that the agreement should be set aside based on a mistaken understanding of the legal principles governing the division of property. The Court concluded that the agreement was valid and binding, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders