Johnson v Johnson - [2021] NZHC 2432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-144

[2021] NZHC 2432

BETWEEN
BRYAN EWART JOHNSON, DAVID HOUGHTON and CHRISTOPHER DAN WILLIAMS

Plaintiffs

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON and MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

First Defendants

LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED
Second Defendant

JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED

Third Defendant

CIV-2021-485-118

BETWEEN

MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON
Applicant

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON

Respondent

Hearing (by VMR): 1 September 2021

Counsel:

C Stevens, T Mijatov and H Stanford for the Applicant M Wigley for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2432 [16 September 2021]

Table of Contents

Background

[2]

Context [8]

Applicable law [11]

The rescission application [15]

Mr Johnson’s submissions [25]

Ms Johnson’s submissions [30]

Discussion [38]
Did the interim injunction application create a false impression about the Global Hort proceeding?  [42]
Did the memorandum in support of the application create a false impression about Mr Johnson’s compliance with Court directions?  [44]
Was there a substantial risk of Mr Johnson deleting emails and WeChat
messages?  [48]
Did the memorandum in support of the application adequately advise the Court of potential opposition or defences by Mr Johnson?  [55]
Ms Johnson’s opposition to variation of the orders  [57] Ms Johnson’s late withdrawal of opposition to the application for rescission [58] Conclusion [60]

The discovery application [62]

Mr Johnson’s submissions [64]

Ms Johnson’s submissions [74]

Discussion [81]

Conclusion [104]

Quantum of costs [105]

Discussion [107]

Result [110]

[1] Craig Johnson seeks indemnity costs of two interlocutory applications which were for hearing on 28 July 2021.

Background

[2] Craig Johnson and Maria Johnson were married, but separated in December 2014. As I understand it, they are now divorced.

[3] There are four proceedings in this Court, involving issues generally related to the relationship property dispute between Mr Johnson and Ms Johnson, set down for substantive hearing for eight days commencing on 8 November 2021:

(a)CIV-2018-485-144 (the “Abel Trust proceeding”);

(b)CIV-2020-485-421 (“the Life Learning Aotearoa proceeding”);

(c)CIV-2020-485-417 (“the Simla Crescent proceeding”); and

(d)CIV-2021-485-118 (“the PRA proceeding”).

[4] The various proceedings detailed above have given rise to a number of interlocutory applications between Mr Johnson and Ms Johnson, including an application by Ms Johnson for an ex parte interim injunction against Mr Johnson and Spark New Zealand Trading Limited (Spark), which was granted by Gault J on 26 May 2021.1 Mr Johnson applied to rescind that ex parte interim injunction on 24 June 2021 (the rescission application). The rescission was opposed by Ms Johnson. That is the first application that I am concerned with today.

[5] The second relevant application was made by Ms Johnson, on 21 June 2021, seeking 29 urgent orders relating to alleged “breach of discovery orders, consequences of breach and as to discovery” (the discovery application). The discovery application was opposed by Mr Johnson.

1 Johnson v Johnson HC Wellington CIV-2018-485-144 Minute of Gault J, 26 May 2021.

[6] Both applications were set down for hearing on 28 July 2021. On…

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 2432
Case: [2021] NZHC 2432
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Johnson concerns a dispute between Craig Johnson and Maria Bernadette Johnson regarding the rescission of an interim injunction and a discovery application. Craig Johnson seeks indemnity costs for both applications. The court found that Maria Bernadette Johnson's interim injunction application was improperly made as it created a false impression about the Global Hort proceeding, which had been threatened for years, and failed to disclose relevant information to the court. Additionally, the memorandum in support of the application created a false impression about Craig Johnson's compliance with court directions and did not adequately advise the court of potential opposition or defences by Craig Johnson. The discovery application was also found to be improperly made, as it was based on false allegations, sought numerous unjustified orders, and included non-existent proceedings in its intitulment. The court ruled that Maria Bernadette Johnson ought to pay indemnity costs to Craig Johnson in respect of each of the rescission application and the discovery application, with the amount of the costs award to be determined in a supplementary judgment once the court receives a further breakdown of costs from Craig Johnson's counsel.

Orders