Legal Research
Cases
Little v Little

Little v Little

Case [2021] NZSC 70 24 June 2021

Unconscionable Conduct

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 38/2021
[2021] NZSC 70

BETWEEN	PETER FRANCIS JOSEPH LITTLE Applicant
AND	DEBRAH LEANNE LITTLE First Respondent
PETER FRANCIS JOSEPH LITTLE AND LOCKHART LEGAL TRUSTEE SERVICES NO 32 LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE MARBLE ARCH FAMILY TRUST Second Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	R C Knight for Applicant M K Headifen for First Respondent
Judgment:	24 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This application for leave to appeal concerns s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1982. It is an application for leave to appeal to this Court directly from a High Court decision.[1]

Background

[1]Little v Little [2020] NZHC 2612, (2020) 5 NZTR ¶30-022 (Jagose J) [HC judgment].

Mr and Mrs Little lived in a de facto relationship from mid-1988 until mid‑1992. They separated for a year and reconciled in mid-1993. They married on 31 October 1993. Their son was born in April 1994 and daughter in September 1996.
The Little family funeral business had been acquired in June 1988 by a company incorporated by Mr Little. In early October 1993, in anticipation of their marriage, all but one of the company’s shares were sold to the Marble Arch Trust (the Trust). This had been done because the parties had not been able to agree on a pre‑nuptial agreement. Subsequent to settlement of the Trust, the family homes of the couple had been settled on the Trust.
The Trust was the family’s exclusive source of income and accommodation and, from around 2000, Mrs Little had increasing involvement in the funeral business. In 2003, the Trust deed was amended to add Mr and Mrs Little’s children as beneficiaries.[2]
[2]The original deed had the settlor’s children as residuary beneficiaries, a mistake it appears, as the settlor was Mr Little’s solicitor: at [16]. This mistake was rectified in 2009.
Mr and Mrs Little separated in mid-2009 and their marriage was dissolved on 5 November 2012.

Decisions in the Courts below

The Family Court considered the settlements on the Trust to be nuptial settlements in terms of s 182, placing weight on the variation of the Trust deed to include the couple’s children as beneficiaries in 2003.[3] The Judge ordered an equal division of the Trust’s assets and liabilities by the mechanism of two parallel trusts.[4]
[3]Little v Little [2020] NZFC 3532 (Judge Burns) [FC judgment] at [69].
[4]At [81].
On appeal to the High Court, Mr Little argued that the Trust was a not a nuptial settlement and that, in any event, Mrs Little had received valuable benefits from the Trust during the marriage and thus could…

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 Little v Little

Details

AGLC: Little v Little [2021] NZSC 70
Case: [2021] NZSC 70
Decision Date: 24 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court was asked to decide an appeal regarding the division of assets of a trust set up by the parties during their marriage. The matter proceeded through the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal, with the applicant, Mr Little, now seeking leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The first respondent, Mrs Little, opposed the application. The central legal issue was whether the trust constituted a nuptial settlement under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1982 and, if so, what the appropriate division of its assets should be. The Family Court and High Court both found that the trust was a nuptial settlement, while the Court of Appeal declined Mr Little's application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court held that this was not an exceptional case justifying a leapfrog appeal, especially given that the Court of Appeal had already declined leave to appeal. The Court found that both the High Court and Family Court had properly applied the test set out in Clayton v Clayton and made the same findings. There was no suggestion that the factual findings made by the lower courts were in error. The Court held that the principles for determining whether a settlement is a nuptial settlement under s 182 are well-established and that the connection or proximity to the marriage must be determined on a case-by-case basis. As such, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and Mr Little was ordered to pay Mrs Little costs of $2,500.

Orders