Jack v Jack

[2014] NZHC 1495

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-4816 [2014] NZHC 1495

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and

the Family Proceedings Act 1980

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal pursuant to s 39 of the
Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JACK Appellant

AND

JACK Respondent

Hearing:	7 February 2014
Counsel:	M W Vickerman and J H Rennie for Appellant A E Hinton QC and J L Forrest for Respondent
Judgment:	1 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2014

at 4.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

William Rennie, Wellington for Appellant

DAC Beachcroft New Zealand, Wellington for Respondent

JACK v JACK [2014] NZHC 1495 [1 July 2014]

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1]

The issues ..............................................................................................................[3] Background...........................................................................................................[5] Post separation ...................................................................................................[17] Litigation history ................................................................................................[21] The purposes and principles of the Act ............................................................[22] Jurisdiction on appeal........................................................................................[24] Structure of this decision ...................................................................................[25] The s 15 appeal ...................................................................................................[26] The law………………………………………………………………………………...[27] The Family Court decision………………………………………………………….[35] Arguments on appeal………………………………………………………………...[37] Discussion……………………………………………………………………………. [40] The quantum appeal ..........................................................................................[61] The law………………………………………………………………………………...[62] The Family Court decision………………………………………………………….[67] Arguments on appeal………………………………………………………………...[71] Discussion……………………………………………………………………………. [75] The compensation appeal ..................................................................................[87] The facts……………………………………………………………………………….[88] The law………………………………………………………………………………...[90] The Family Court decision………………………………………………………….[92] Arguments on appeal………………………………………………………………...[98] Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...[102] The maintenance appeal .................................................................................. [117] Conclusion......................................................................................................... [118] Costs .................................................................................................................. [119]

Introduction

[1]      This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a decision of Judge Grace in the Family  Court  determining  the  parties’ entitlements  under  the  Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) and Mrs Jack’s claim for maintenance under the Family Proceedings Act 1980.1

[2]      The  Judge  ordered  that  Mrs  Jack  would  receive  70  per  cent  of  the  net relationship property pool pursuant to s 15 of the Act, declined to award compensation under s 18B of the Act for Mr Jack’s post separation contributions and did not make any further maintenance order in Mrs Jack’s favour.

The issues

[3]      There are three aspects to this appeal.  The first concerns the s 15 award.  The appellant, Mr Jack, appeals on the basis that the circumstances of the relationship do not  fall  within  the  jurisdictional  parameters  of  s  15.    Alternatively,  even  if jurisdiction  does  exist,  the  amount  awarded  by  Judge Grace  is  challenged  as incorrect.

[4]      Mr Jack also appeals against the decision not to award compensation under s

18B.   The third aspect will only arise if Mr Jack succeeds on one or more of the above grounds.  If that occurs, the respondent, Mrs Jack, appeals against the Judge’s decision in relation to maintenance.

Background

[5]      Mr Jack is a highly skilled medical specialist, aged 57.   Mrs Jack’s former occupation  was  as  an  enrolled  nurse.    She  is  currently employed  fulltime  as  a receptionist at a beauty salon.  She is also 57…