Horsfield v Giltrap - [2001] NZCA 179

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 207/00

BETWEEN	JOHN HORSFIELD
Appellant

AND	NGAIRA ANN GILTRAP
Respondent

Hearing:	28 May 2001
Coram:	Blanchard J Doogue J Goddard J
Appearances:	D G Dewar for Appellant V H Ullrich QC for Respondent
Judgment:	28 May 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY BLANCHARD J

This appeal involves a long-standing relationship in the nature of a partnership between a man and a woman. The unusual feature is that, although they were in many respects a couple, and regarded by their friends as such, for religious reasons they did not at any stage co-habit nor even have a sexual relationship. Their relationship began in 1976 and, by the time it broke down in 1998, the parties had together acquired various investments consisting of six residential properties, a 50% interest in an ocean-going charter yacht, a motor vehicle and a modest shareholding. Three of the properties were held in their joint names, two in the name of Mr Horsfield, the appellant, and one in the name of Ms Giltrap, the respondent. For significant periods during the latter portion of the relationship both parties were working and were members of superannuation schemes operated by their respective employers.
In the High Court a judgment was given dividing all of their property equally between them. This appeal relates only to the finding that Ms Giltrap was entitled to a 50% interest in the appellant’s superannuation benefits from a scheme which was wholly employer funded. This was in fact the only property really in contest in the High Court. Mr Horsfield’s superannuation had a value of $205,000. Ms Giltrap’s superannuation was worth $53,000. The dispute relates therefore to the sum of $76,000, being the one-half share of the difference between those values, which has been awarded to Ms Giltrap.

Facts

Mr Horsfield was married with two children when his marriage broke down in 1976. Upon division of his then matrimonial assets, he was left with very little. He met Ms Giltrap through a church. They became close friends and indeed emotionally committed to each other. Throughout the period of their relationship they regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, to be a close and devoted couple. The respondent spent most of her waking hours, when she was not at work, at the appellant’s home. She cooked, performed household tasks and was to all intents and purposes a stepmother to the Horsfield children and acted like a wife towards the appellant. However, because of their belief in certain biblical teachings, they did not actually live together or have a sexual relationship. Ms Giltrap maintained her own accommodation to which she returned every evening.
In early 1998 the appellant was seconded by BP New Zealand Ltd, his employer, to work in Australia. The posting was temporary: expected to be for no more than three years. Furniture, largely provided by the respondent, was moved to Australia. It was agreed that the respondent would visit regularly. However, in May 1998, the…

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 Horsfield v Giltrap

Details

AGLC: Horsfield v Giltrap [2001] NZCA 179
Case: [2001] NZCA 179
Decision Date: 28 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal in Horsfield v Giltrap, a case concerning the division of property between John Horsfield and Ngairra Giltrap, who had been in a long-term de facto relationship. The appeal focused on the division of superannuation benefits, specifically a 50% interest in Horsfield’s superannuation valued at $205,000. Giltrap had been awarded a 50% interest in Horsfield's superannuation, equating to a sum of $76,000, which Horsfield contested.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether there was an express common intention or agreement that the parties would share their superannuation benefits upon retirement, and if not, whether Giltrap had a reasonable expectation of sharing in Horsfield's superannuation. The court also had to consider whether Giltrap's contributions to their relationship and household justified a claim to a share of Horsfield's superannuation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that Giltrap was entitled to a 50% interest in Horsfield's superannuation. The Court found that although the relationship did not involve cohabitation or a sexual relationship due to religious beliefs, it was akin to a partnership in many respects. Giltrap had made substantial contributions to the relationship, both financially and through domestic services, which justified her reasonable expectation of sharing in Horsfield's superannuation. The Court concluded that the evidence supported the notion that both parties intended their savings and investments, including superannuation, to provide for their joint retirement. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to Giltrap.

Orders