Johnson v Johnson - [2021] NZHC 2540

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-454-144

[2021] NZHC 2540

BETWEEN BRYAN EWART JOHNSON, DAVID HOUGHTON WALE and CHRISTOPHER DAN WILLIAMS
Plaintiffs

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON and MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

First Defendants continued…

Hearing:
23 September 2021

(By Telephone Conference)

Counsel:

RJ B Fowler QC for Trustees of Abel Trust and for family members

of Johnson family witnesses to be subpoenaed by Maria Johnson C M Stevens, T Mijatov and H L Stanford for Craig Johnson in all

proceedings

G M Illingworth QC, C J R Baird and P J Magee for Maria Johnson in all proceedings

O E Jaques for Johnson Preschool Limited

M L Greenhough for Craig Johnson in the relationship property proceeding

Judgment:

27 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Judgment on application for an adjournment)

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2540 [27 September 2021]

AND LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED
Second Defendant

AND JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED
Third Defendant

CIV-2020-485-417

BETWEEN MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON
Plaintiff

AND CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON
First Defendant

ANDCRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON, MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON and GRANT MAITLAND RICHARDSON,
Trustees of the C B and M B Johnson Family Trust
Second Defendants

CIV-2020-485-421

BETWEEN CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON
Plaintiff

ANDLIFE LEARNING AOTEAROA LIMITED
First Defendant

AND MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON
Second Defendant

AND LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED
Third Defendant

AND JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

CIV-2021-485-118

BETWEEN MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON
Applicant

AND CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON
Respondent

[1] The four proceedings referred to above are set down to be heard together in an eight-day hearing commencing on 8 November 2021. Maria Johnson (Maria) applies to vacate the hearing date. That hearing date was allocated in October 2020 in respect of all but the relationship property proceeding which Maria commenced in the Family Court in December 2017. That proceeding was transferred to this Court relatively recently and in June 2021 I directed that it be heard at the November 2021 hearing. All counsel confirmed there was sufficient hearing time available for that to occur.

[2] In a memorandum dated 22 September 2021, Mr Illingworth QC, counsel for Maria in all proceedings, said none of his legal team “had been fully or finally engaged to act as counsel at the November hearing”. I was not made aware of any such limitation in counsel’s instructions.

[3] The procedural history of these proceedings has not been straightforward. Maria, while initially represented by a large law firm, was for some time represented by a sole practitioner in Wellington, Mr Wigley. Mr Wigley’s failure to comply with timetabling directions has been the subject of comment in numerous Minutes in these proceedings, resulting in costs awards, warnings about unless orders, and the making of such orders.

[4] The issue of timetabling evidence for the hearing came to a…

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 Johnson v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Johnson [2021] NZHC 2540
Case: [2021] NZHC 2540
Decision Date: 27 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maria Bernadette Johnson applied for an adjournment of a hearing date set down in October 2020. The hearing was to deal with four proceedings involving her former husband, Craig Bryan Johnson, and various other parties. The application came before Associate Judge Lester, who declined the application on 27 September 2021. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to vacate the hearing date set down over a year earlier. Counsel had confirmed at the time of the allocation of the hearing date that there was sufficient time available to deal with the matters. The application for an adjournment was made on the basis that Maria's previous counsel had withdrawn shortly before the hearing, leaving her with no choice but to instruct a new legal team. The new team had limited knowledge of the proceedings and could not comply with the timetable for the provision of evidence. The court noted that the evidence in the proceeding had been by way of affidavit, and much of the material was in and just needed to be collated. The court was satisfied that the key evidence in the relationship property proceeding had already been filed, and Maria's expert evidence was well advanced. The former counsel was co-operating in the handover of the file, and there was no reason why he could not assist in the collation and sorting of the evidence. The court took into account the prejudice to Craig, who would be unable to attend the adjourned hearing due to travel restrictions, and the significant impact on the efficient administration of justice of an adjourned fixture. The court held that the reasons that compelled the withdrawal of Maria's former counsel did not prevent him from co-operating to the fullest extent possible in the handover to the new legal team. The court declined the application for an adjournment and directed that counsel were to immediately liaise in respect of a new timetable.

Orders