Johnson v Johnson - [2021] NZHC 840

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 840

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

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON and MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

First Defendants

AND

LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED

Third Defendant continued …

Hearing: 22 March 2021

Appearances:

M B Wigley for Maria Johnson in all proceedings

C M Stevens, T Mijatov and H L Stanford for Craig Johnson in all proceedings save transferred Family Court proceeding
M L Greenhough for Craig Johnson in transferred Family Court proceeding

O E Jacques Assisting Counsel as amicus in CIV-2018-485-144 and CIV-2020-485-421

Judgment:

20 April 2021

Reissued:

8 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 April 2021 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 840 [20 April 2021]

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

AND LIFE 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

Introduction

[1] The first defendants (in CIV-2018-484-144), Craig Johnson (Craig) and Maria Johnson (Maria), were married but separated in December 2014.

[2]The applications before the Court for determination are:

(a)an application by Maria that Craig be directed to answer interrogatories and provide discovery;

(b)an application by Craig that Maria be found in contempt of court for failing to satisfy a costs order in favour of Craig;

(c)that Maria pay costs to Craig following the abandonment of an application by Maria to bring a derivative defence in the name of Johnson Preschool Ltd (“the derivative application”); and

(d)a jurisdictional issue relating to a recently transferred Family Court proceeding.

[3] There are four proceedings being case managed together involving Craig, Maria, their companies and a family trust associated with Craig’s family. CIV-2021-485-118 is a proceeding between Craig and Maria recently transferred from the Family Court. While the four proceedings are case managed together and ultimately will be heard together in a fixture in November 2021, they are not formally consolidated. However, the parties agree that the evidence in each proceeding is available across all proceedings. One of the proceedings (CIV-2020-485-417) has in substance been resolved.

Background

[4] Craig and Maria are equal shareholders and the two directors of Johnson Preschool Limited (JPL). The plaintiffs (in CIV-2018-485-144) are trustees of a family trust connected to Craig (the Abel Trust) – the first named plaintiff, being Craig’s father.

[5] In mid-2011, JPL wanted to acquire a property in St Heliers, Auckland, to establish a new preschool. It is not in dispute that on 13 June 2011, 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 840
Case: [2021] NZHC 840
Decision Date: 20 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves proceedings between Craig and Maria Johnson and their associated companies, including Johnson Preschool Limited. The applicants, Craig and Maria, seek various orders, including interrogatories and discovery, from the court. The court was required to decide whether certain interrogatories were necessary and relevant to the issues in dispute, whether Maria was in contempt for failing to pay costs, and whether Maria was entitled to discovery of certain documents. The court also had to determine if Maria's application for an order under r 400 of the Family Court Rules 2002 survived the transfer of proceedings to the High Court.

The court found that some of the interrogatories were relevant and necessary, while others were not. It directed Craig to answer specific questions, such as whether he informed the ANZ about the alternative use of the advance and what he stated to them. The court also found that Maria was not in contempt for failing to pay costs prior to the hearing but awarded costs on a 2B basis for the contempt application. Regarding discovery, the court directed the parties to follow specific steps to investigate the recoverability of certain emails. The court dismissed Maria's application for an order under r 400 of the Family Court Rules 2002, as it did not survive the transfer of proceedings to the High Court.

The court ordered Maria to pay $7,500 in wasted costs to Craig for the period between the reactivation and abandonment of her derivative defence application. It also ordered Maria to pay Craig $500 in wasted costs incurred in the issue of the production of documents being pursued. No costs were awarded for the r 400 FCR application or the jurisdictional issue, as the point was one raised by the court and appeared to be an unanticipated consequence of the transfer, which was made by consent.

Orders