Mahoney v Mahoney - [2017] NZHC 2822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV 2016-470-203 [2017] NZHC 2822

IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

KERYN LOUISE MAHONEY Plaintiff

AND

DONALD CHARLES MAHONEY First Defendant

DONALD CHARLES MAHONEY and PATRICK CHARLES STUART as trustees of the Mahoney Family Trust Second Defendants

Hearing: 15 March 2017

Appearances:

D A T Chambers QC and J R Hosking for Plaintiff
S R Jefferson QC and K M Lellman for First Defendant

Judgment:

17 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 17 November 2017 at 9 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Solicitors: Simply Law, Tauranga
Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga

Counsel: D A T Chambers QC, Auckland
J R Hosking, Auckland
S R Jefferson QC, Auckland

MAHONEY v MAHONEY [2017] NZHC 2822 [17 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] On 22 June 2017, I issued a results judgment declining an application by

Mr Mahoney, the first defendant, for orders directing separate trials (“application”). These are my reasons for doing so.

[2] The application is for the following orders:

1. Firstly, whether the interim s21A Agreement entered into on
8 February 2013 and the final s21A Agreement entered into on
29 May 2013 between the applicant and respondent should be overturned; and

2. Secondly, if the s21A Agreement entered by the parties into on
29 May 2013 is overturned, what the parties’ respective shares in
Relationship Property are.

[3] The application is made pursuant to r 10.15 High Court Rules, which provides:

10.15 Orders for decision

The court may, whether or not the decision will dispose of the proceeding, make orders for—

(a) the decision of any question separately from any other question, before, at, or after any trial or further trial in the proceeding; and

(b) the formulation of the question for decision ...

[4] The parties, Mrs Mahoney and Mr Mahoney, entered into the agreements referred to in the application following their separation in December 2012. The agreements are expressed to be made pursuant to s 21A Property (Relationships) Act
1976 (“PRA”). Amongst other things, Mrs Mahoney seeks in this proceeding to have the agreement of 29 May 2013 (“May agreement”) set aside. The other agreement is referred to as the February agreement.

[5] Mr Mahoney seeks an order that issue, that is whether the May agreement should be set aside, be determined in a first trial, with any other remaining causes of action determined in a second trial. Mr Mahoney submits that it will be more efficient and expeditious to proceed in this manner. Mrs Mahoney submits that course will only serve to delay resolution of all issues, will increase the parties’ costs, and that all issues should be resolved in one trial.

[6] The second defendants, being the present trustees of the Mahoney Family Trust

(“trust” and “trustees”), did not appear on the application.

Background

[7] Mr and Mrs Mahoney had…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mahoney v Mahoney and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 2822
Decision Date: 17 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mahoney v Mahoney, the court was tasked with determining whether to grant an application by the first defendant, Donald Charles Mahoney, to order separate trials. The application sought to determine the validity of a Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) agreement and the parties' respective shares in relationship property. The legal issues centered on the court's discretion under r 10.15 High Court Rules to order separate trials and whether such an order would expedite the resolution of the dispute. The court considered several factors, including the potential for difficult demarcation questions, the overlap of evidence, and the risk of conflicting findings in separate trials. Ultimately, the court concluded that separate trials would not expedite the resolution of the entire dispute and dismissed the application. The court found that the issues were better resolved in one trial, given the risk of duplication and the potential for delay in resolving the dispute through separate trials.

Orders