Johnson v Johnson - [2021] NZHC 1369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-000144

[2021] NZHC 1369

BETWEEN
BRYAN EWART JOHNSON, DAVID HOUGHTON WALE AND

CHRISTOPHER DAN WILLIAM AS TRUSTEES OF THE ABEL TRUST
Plaintiffs

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON AND MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

First Defendants

AND

LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 10 May 2021

Appearances:

A S Butler for Defendant Maria Johnson

A R Galbraith QC and H L Stanford for Defendant Craig Johnson O Jaques – Counsel Appointed to Assist the Court relating to Johnson Preschool Limited

Judgment:

10 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 June 2021 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 1369 [10 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Craig Bryan Johnson (Mr Johnson) and Maria Bernadette Johnson (Ms Johnson) were married but separated in December 2014. As I understand it, they are now divorced.

[2] Proceedings have been issued in this Court regarding relationship property and related issues between them. Largely, these concern assets and claims relating to a number of entities in which they have been involved, including the Abel Trust (of whom the plaintiffs in this proceeding 144 are the trustees), Johnson Preschool Limited (the third defendant), Global Horticulture Limited (GHL), in which the parties hold certain shares, and other companies.

[3] The present proceeding 144 (the “Abel Trust proceeding”) is one of four proceedings in this Court involving issues generally related to the relationship property dispute of Mr Johnson and Ms Johnson. The other three proceedings are:

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

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

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

A substantive hearing, including all four of these proceedings, has been set down for eight days in this Court commencing on 8 November 2021.

[4] Numerous issues (whether relevant to the relationship property dispute or otherwise) have been raised over the last few years between Ms Johnson, Mr Johnson and others. Indeed, on 3 July 2020, in an earlier judgment in this Court related to an aspect of the proceeding involving these parties (the Abel Trust debt recovery proceeding), Associate Judge Johnson noted at para [2] that:1
…The scope of the proceeding has expanded. Why that has happened is not difficult to discern. Craig and Maria (the Johnsons) appear to be engaged in a no-holds-barred relationship property dispute in which their liabilities and

1 Johnson v Johnson [2020] 1563 at [2].

those of their businesses to the plaintiff trustees (of the Abel Trust) are relevant.

Associate Judge Johnston went on to describe the matter before him as an “interlocutory skirmish”. In my view, this aptly describes the present application as well.

[5] This is regrettable, and it seems too that other judicial officers have made similar comments. Remarking on this, Associate Judge Johnston in these proceedings has also hinted at what he described as a “proliferation of the…

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 1369
Case: [2021] NZHC 1369
Decision Date: 10 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application by Maria Bernadette Johnson against Craig Bryan Johnson and others in relation to alleged breaches of privilege and misrepresentation. The application was part of an ongoing relationship property dispute between the former spouses, involving various companies and trusts. The court heard the application on 10 May 2021, and the judgment was delivered on 10 June 2021. The court found that the alleged breaches of privilege and misrepresentation were not substantiated and declined to make the declarations sought by Ms Johnson. The court also refused to sanction Mr Johnson's legal advisers and denied the costs sought by Ms Johnson. Instead, the court reserved the decision on costs, encouraging the parties' counsel to liaise and attempt to resolve the matter between themselves. If unsuccessful, the counsel could file memoranda on the issue of costs, which would then be referred to the court for a decision.

Orders