Masters v Masters - [2023] NZHC 3027

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

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
https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-817

[2023] NZHC 3027

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980, Companies Act 1993 and the Trusts Act 2019

BETWEEN

NAYANA MASTERS

Plaintiff

AND

SANJAY ARVIND MASTERS

First Defendant

continued…

Hearing: 9 October 2023

Appearances:

J D Noble for Plaintiff

K D Puddle for Third Defendant
M K Macnab for Fourth and Fifth Defendant

Judgment:

31 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2023 at 12.45pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
………………………………..……

MASTERS v MASTERS [2023] NZHC 3027 [31 October 2023]

AND SANJAY ARVIND MASTERS and
BHARAT PARSHOTAM, as trustees of the Sylvania Trust
Second Defendants

AND ARROWMASTERS LIMITED (in
liquidation)
Third Defendant

AND SANJAY ARVIND MASTERS
and HASMUKHBEN MASTERS, as
trustees of the Ennismore Trust Fourth Defendants

AND ARVIND SHIVLAL MASTERS
Fifth Defendant

[1] Nayana Masters (Nayana) and Sanjay Masters (Sanjay) were married in July 1992. They separated in February 2017 and their marriage was dissolved in April 2020, however their broader relationship property issues remain unresolved.

[2] One of Nayana’s main concerns is that value she believed existed during her relationship with Sanjay has been lost, however, her attempts to secure that value have led to her claim becoming overly complicated; the claim now running to 20 causes of action.

[3] The assets relevant to the present application and how they were held at separation are as follows:

Address Held by during relationship

172

Great South Road

Masters Enterprises Limited

]

] The commercial

] properties

174 Great South Road Masters Enterprises Limited

9 Albion Street Masters Enterprises Limited

24A

John Rymer Place

Sylvania Trust

]

] The residential
] properties

]

39 Albert Street Sylvania Trust

434A Hillsborough Road Sylvania Trust

37A Sylvania Crescent Masters Enterprises Limited

[4] All of the above properties were eventually transferred to Arrowmasters Limited (Arrowmasters), which is now in liquidation.

[5] It is now common ground that the commercial properties were held by Arrowmasters as its own assets with the remaining properties, all residential, held on trust for the Ennismore Trust, the fourth defendant. The current pleading is that all the properties were held for Ennismore Trust. At the hearing, Mr Noble, counsel for Nayana, confirmed that position was not maintained; that concession alone will require the claim to be re-drafted.

[6] The residential properties were transferred by the Sylvania Trust (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 Masters v Masters

Details

AGLC: Masters v Masters [2023] NZHC 3027
Case: [2023] NZHC 3027
Decision Date: 31 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application by Nayana Masters against her former husband, Sanjay Masters, and several other defendants related to unresolved relationship property issues following their marriage dissolution in 2020. The court dealt with numerous causes of action that had become redundant or required redrafting. The main issue was the proper identification of defendants and the assets held by them. Nayana sought various orders to secure the net sale proceeds of properties that had been transferred to Arrowmasters Limited, which was in liquidation. Arrowmasters, along with other defendants, applied to strike out various causes of action against them or for further particulars. The court found several causes of action against Arrowmasters, the trustees of the Ennismore Trust, and Arvind Masters redundant or improperly pleaded. Notably, it was acknowledged that the commercial properties were held by Arrowmasters as its own assets, while the residential properties were held on trust for the Ennismore Trust. The court struck out certain causes of action against Arrowmasters and the Ennismore Trust trustees, while others were directed to be omitted or repleaded. The court also struck out claims against Arvind Masters regarding the transfer of shares, finding that Nayana lacked standing to bring certain claims. The court recommended focusing on the real targets of the claims and suggested a Judicial Settlement Conference to address the unresolved issues pragmatically. The court ordered the redrafting of the statement of claim, the filing of amended defences, and the discontinuance of certain defendants, reserving costs for later determination.

Orders