Marta Hayes v Judith Guerin

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 59/2011
[2011] NZSC 80

BETWEEN MARTA HAYES
Applicant

AND JUDITH GUERIN
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
I Thorpe for Respondent

Judgment: 3 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2500 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

REASONS

This litigation concerns a dispute between half sisters over the terms of the will of their mother. Her will left her entire estate to the applicant, Dr Hayes. The respondent, Ms Guerin, brought Family Protection Act proceedings and obtained an award of $80,000 in the Family Court.[1] The applicant appealed to the High Court and in that Court also claimed under the Administration Act for the return to her of certain estate assets.
[1]J H v M H FC Gisborne FAM-2008-016-88, 12 December 2008.
In a comprehensive judgment dealing with both matters, Miller J dismissed the appeal against the Family Court judgment.[2] In the Administration Act claim the applicant achieved only modest success. She sought leave to appeal against the Family Protection Act determination but was refused leave by Miller J and then the Court of Appeal,[3] finally resolving that aspect of the litigation.
[2]Hayes v Guerin HC Gisborne CIV-2009-410-10, 19 June 2009.
[3]Hayes v Guerin [2010] NZCA 148.
At that point the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Administration Act component of the High Court judgment.[4] By this time over a year had elapsed since Miller J had determined that claim.
[4]Hayes v Guerin [2010] NZCA 592.
The Court of Appeal considered her explanations for the delay but decided they were inadequate. The Court was also of the view that the merits of the Administration Act appeal were not strong. It refused to extend the time, the consequence of which is that the appeal is deemed abandoned.
In this Court, the applicant’s written submissions have ranged over all issues earlier addressed in the litigation. This includes the Family Protection Act component of the High Court judgment. There is no attempt in the submissions to directly address the reasoning given by the Court of Appeal for refusing to extend time. We are satisfied that the Court’s approach and its decision were correct. There is no tenable argument advanced in the submissions to indicate otherwise and in those circumstances it is not in the interests of justice for us to grant leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Egan and Kite, Gisborne for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal brought by Marta Hayes against Judith Guerin. The case revolves around a dispute between the half-sisters over the terms of their mother's will, which left the entire estate to Marta. Judith sought an award under the Family Protection Act, which was granted in the Family Court, awarding her $80,000. Marta appealed to the High Court, where she also sought the return of certain estate assets under the Administration Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal but allowed a partial claim under the Administration Act. Marta sought leave to appeal against the Family Protection Act determination, which was denied by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also refused Marta's request for an extension of time to appeal against the Administration Act component of the High Court judgment, deeming the appeal abandoned.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision to deny leave to appeal and refuse an extension of time was correct and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The Court considered whether there was a tenable argument advanced in the submissions to indicate that the Court of Appeal's approach and decision were incorrect. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's reasoning and decision were correct, and there was no tenable argument presented by Marta to indicate otherwise.

The Supreme Court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The Court was satisfied with the Court of Appeal's assessment of the merits of the Administration Act appeal and the adequacy of Marta's explanations for the delay in appealing. The Court found that the arguments presented in Marta's submissions did not directly address the reasoning given by the Court of Appeal for refusing to extend time, and there was no indication that the Court of Appeal's decision was incorrect. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs of $2,500 payable by Marta to Judith.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established