Houston-Quay v Henson - [2013] NZHC 294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV2012-419-001206 [2013] NZHC 294

UNDER the District Courts Act 1947

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against the decision of the
District Court at Hamilton

BETWEEN AMANDA JANE HOUSTON-QUAY Appellant

ANDJULIAN DOYLE HENSON (AKA IAN HENSON)
Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2013

Counsel: K F Shaw for the Appellant
D Hayes for the Respondent

Judgment: 22 February 2013

[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

Distribution:
K F Shaw: karen.shaw@harkness.co.nz
D Hayes: david@taxlaw.co.nz

HOUSTON-QUAY V HENSON (AKA IAN HENSON) HC HAM CIV 2012-419-001206 [22 February 2013]

Introduction

[1] This case concerns the interface between the District Court and the Family Court. It is an appeal against a decision by Judge D C Ruth that the proceedings commenced by the appellant in the District Court should be pursued in the Family Court.

Factual Background

[2] The parties were in a de facto relationship.

[3] The appellant, Ms Houston-Quay, asserted in an affidavit filed in the proceedings that:

(a) the relationship began as a casual affair in about February 2009;

(b) the respondent, Mr Henson, moved into a house she rented in

November 2009;

(c) they commenced living together as a couple in or about February

2010; and

(d) the relationship terminated on 19 February 2011.

She asserted that the de facto relationship lasted only for a year, or at most two years. [4] In an affidavit he filed in the proceedings, Mr Henson disputed the nature and
intensity of the relationship at various points of time and took issue with some of the dates asserted by Ms Houston-Quay, but he did not dispute her base assertion that the de facto relationship was of either one or two years’ duration.

[5] On 24 March 2011, Ms Houston-Quay commenced debt recovery proceedings against Mr Henson in the District Court at Hamilton. She sought

recovery of a personal loan she asserts she made to Mr Henson in the sum of

$20,000.

[6] On 11 May 2011, Mr Henson filed an appearance under protest to jurisdiction. He objected to the District Court hearing the matter, and asserted that the proceedings should have been commenced in the Family Court. He alleged that the proceedings concerned relationship property, that he and Ms Houston-Quay were in a relationship to which the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 applied, that they had entered into an oral relationship property agreement, and that she had removed relationship property from the family home when the relationship came to an end.

[7] On 30 May 2011, Ms Houston-Quay filed an interlocutory application seeking to set aside the appearance under protest to jurisdiction. She argued that the notice of claim filed by her raised a claim in contract, and that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as a debt recovery proceeding. She asserted that she was not seeking the division of any relationship property, and that the Property (Relationships) Act did not apply.

[8] A notice of opposition to the interlocutory application to set aside the appearance…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Houston-Quay v Henson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 294
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an appeal against a decision by Judge Ruth that the proceedings commenced by the appellant in the District Court should be pursued in the Family Court. The parties were in a de facto relationship. The appellant commenced debt recovery proceedings against the respondent in the District Court, seeking recovery of a personal loan. The respondent objected to the District Court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the proceedings should have been commenced in the Family Court. The appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking to set aside the appearance under protest to jurisdiction. She argued that the notice of claim filed by her raised a claim in contract, and that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as a debt recovery proceeding. The District Court held that the proceedings should be dealt with by the Family Court. The appellant appealed Judge Ruth’s decision. She asserted that Judge Ruth erred when he held that the proceedings should be dealt with in the Family Court. The appeal raises the question whether the dispute between the parties raised in the pleadings can, by law, only be determined by the Family Court. The court held that the District Court has jurisdiction in the present case, and on the pleadings, the Family Court has no jurisdiction in relation to the matter. The appeal was allowed. The appellant is entitled to her costs and reasonable disbursements. Costs are fixed on a 2B basis. In the event that there is any dispute between the parties as to quantum, the same is to be referred to the judge within 10 working days of the date of release of this judgment. The judge will then deal with the issue on the papers, unless the judge requires the assistance of counsel.

Orders