Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter

[2017] NZSC 21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 138/2016
[2017] NZSC 21

BETWEEN

MARK ALBERT HORSFALL
Applicant

AND

DIANA JANE POTTER
First Respondent

168 GROUP LIMITED
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	T G Stapleton QC for Applicant J R Billington QC, R A Newberry and T Cleary for First Respondent R J B Fowler QC for Second Respondent
Judgment:	2 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. One of the issues raised in this appeal is the principle discussed in Potter v Potter (and in subsequent cases).[1]  Given that the principle is in issue as a result of the position adopted by the appellant for tax purposes, and that the principle has, in any event, wider public policy implications, we consider that we may be assisted by submissions from the Crown on the relevant policy considerations.  Accordingly, we direct the Registrar to bring the appeal to the attention of the Solicitor-General so that she can determine whether the Attorney-General wishes to intervene to assist the Court in that regard.

   [1]Potter v Potter [2003] 3 NZLR 145 (CA), aff’d Potter v Potter [2004] UKPC 41, [2005] 2 NZLR 1.

Solicitors:
Langford Law, Wellington for Applicant
Sievwrights, Wellington for First Respondent
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for Second Respondent