Huljich v Huljich - [2018] NZHC 3029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2014-404-2631

[2018] NZHC 3029

BETWEEN
ELIZABETH HULJICH

Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTOPHER PETER HULJICH

First Defendant

PETER KARL CHRISTOPHER HULJICH
Second Defendant

MICHAEL STEPHEN HULJICH

Third Defendant

Hearing: 13 November 2018

Counsel:

RJ Hollyman and SPH Elliott for plaintiff

DH McLellan QC and HMZ Ford for defendants

Judgment:

21 November 2018

Reissued:

5 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

[As to admissibility of evidence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 November 2018 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar……………………………. Date……………………..…

Solicitors: Nicholls Law Ltd, Auckland (A Nicholls)
Harmos Horton Lusk, Auckland (G Horton)

Andto: GF Little SC, Auckland DB Beard, Auckland

Huljich v Huljich [2018] NZHC 3029 [21 November 2018]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Mrs Huljich, sues two of her sons (who I will refer to in this judgment as Christopher and Michael) as well as her grandson (who I will refer to as Peter).1 The dispute relates mainly, but not exclusively, to recovery of money Mrs Huljich says she loaned the defendants several years ago that has not been repaid in full. The defendants accept Mrs Huljich provided a loan to her three sons, including Christopher and Michael (but not her grandson Peter), but say the amounts they received have been fully repaid.

[2] The proceedings have been on foot since 2014 and have had a long and difficult history.2 A substantive hearing scheduled for earlier this year had to be vacated. As matters stand, the proceeding is set down for a five-day substantive fixture commencing on 3 December 2018.

[3] Mrs Huljich and the defendants have served their briefs of evidence. The defendants object to aspects of the evidence to be called by Mrs Huljich, saying it is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible3 or, if relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the risk it will needlessly prolong the proceedings.4 This judgment determines the admissibility objections.

[4] Admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings is very often dealt with at the outset of trial or during the course of the trial itself. Alternatively, the evidence can be received on a provisional basis,5 and, after having heard all the evidence at trial, the court may make rulings as to admissibility in its substantive judgment.

[5] In this case, however, given these proceedings’ difficult history, and that the fixture is now scheduled for five days only, Moore J directed the admissibility issues be heard and determined prior to trial. This was necessary particularly because the admissibility of two entire (expert) briefs of evidence is challenged.

1      I will refer to Christopher, Michael and Peter collectively as “the defendants”.
2      For example, in a judgment dated 17 October 2018, Moore J described the proceedings as having “been plagued by chronic failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with timetabling directions and other Court orders”: Huljich v Huljich [2018] NZHC 2682 at [2].
3      Evidence Act 2006,…

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 Huljich v Huljich

Details

AGLC: Huljich v Huljich [2018] NZHC 3029
Case: [2018] NZHC 3029
Decision Date: 21 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Huljich v Huljich is a case in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, involving a dispute between Elizabeth Huljich and her sons, Christopher and Michael, as well as her grandson, Peter. The plaintiff, Mrs Huljich, claims repayment of a loan made to the defendants, which she asserts remains outstanding. She also seeks recovery of an overpayment made to her sons and claims damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement. The defendants counter that the loan amounts have been fully repaid. The court was required to decide on the admissibility of evidence presented by both parties, specifically whether it was relevant and whether its probative value was outweighed by the risk of needlessly prolonging the proceedings.

The court considered the admissibility of evidence in light of the Evidence Act 2006, particularly sections 7, 8, and 25. Section 7 allows all relevant evidence unless made inadmissible by an enactment, while section 8 permits exclusion if the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the risk of prolonging the proceedings. Section 25 controls the admissibility of expert opinion evidence, requiring it to be relevant and substantially helpful.

The court found that some of Mrs Huljich's statements regarding her awareness of her sons' financial situations were potentially relevant to the context of the loan agreement. However, allegations of deception and subterfuge were deemed inadmissible as they would needlessly prolong the proceedings. Certain paragraphs of Mrs Huljich's brief were ruled inadmissible due to irrelevance or hearsay concerns. Additionally, expert evidence from Mr Connell, Mrs Visser, and Dr Srzich was largely found inadmissible, with exceptions made for specific aspects of Dr Srzich's evidence regarding Mrs Huljich's depressive episodes.

In summary, the court ruled that specific paragraphs of Mrs Huljich's brief and certain expert evidence would be admissible, while other evidence was excluded. The court's decision ensures that only relevant and necessary evidence is presented at the trial, aiming to expedite the proceedings and focus on the material issues.

Orders