Legal Research
Cases
Matthews v Phochai

Matthews v Phochai

Case [2020] NZHC 3455 18 December 2020

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1459

[2020] NZHC 3455

UNDER The Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of Noel Stanley Matthews

BETWEEN

GREG DENNIS MATTHEWS

Appellant

AND

NARADA PHOCHAI

Respondent

Hearing: 17 November 2020

Appearances:

D K Wilson for the Appellant

R Rao and T Anderson for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors/Counsel:
Raymond S Walker, Solicitor, Auckland David Wilson, Barrister, Auckland
Inder Lynch, Manukau

MATTHEWS v PHOCHAI [2020] NZHC 3455 [18 December 2020]

[1] This is an appeal against a decision of Judge Goodwin in the Family Court at Manukau dated 7 August 2020.1 An earlier decision dated 10 October 2019 is also relevant.2 The Judge awarded Ms Phochai $1,000,000 under the Family Protection Act 1955 (the Act). She was the de facto wife of the testator Mr Matthews, and no provision had been made for her under his will. The major beneficiary of the estate was the testator’s youngest child, Greg Matthews.

[2] During the District Court hearing it was conceded there was a breach of moral duty by the testator, so the only matter in dispute was the amount required to remedy that breach. The respondent says the judge erred in a number of respects and the sum awarded should have been between $700,000 and $750,000, not $1,000,000.

[3] This being an appeal against a discretion, May v May principles apply. The appellant has to show that the judge has failed to take a relevant factor into account, taken something into account he should not have, or reached a plainly wrong decision.3

[4] Ms Phochai also applied to set aside a contracting out agreement entered into between herself and Mr Matthews in 2005, under the Property Relationships (Act) 1976 (PRA). She was unsuccessful on that application.4 A question arises as to the impact of that agreement on the extent of the moral duty.

Background

[5] Mr Matthews died on 19 August 2016 at the age of 71. Ms Phochai was 55 at that time.

[6] Mr Matthews had been married twice and had three children, before entering the de facto relationship with Ms Phochai which began in mid-2005.

[7] Mr Matthews’ first marriage was in 1966 and produced two children, Gina who was aged about 49 and Mark aged about 47 at the time Mr Matthews died. Gina is a

1      Phochai v Estate of Noel Stanley Matthews [2020] NZFC 8347.
2      Phochai v Estate of Noel Stanley Matthews [2019] NZFC 5155.
3      May v May (1982) 1 NZFLR 165 (CA) at 169.
4      Above n 2, at [35]-[39].

doctor and lives in Australia with her family and Mark, who is single, lives in Tauranga in supported accommodation. He has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

[8] Mr Matthews’ first marriage…

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 Matthews v Phochai

Details

AGLC: Matthews v Phochai [2020] NZHC 3455
Case: [2020] NZHC 3455
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the quantum of an award made to Ms Phochai under the Family Protection Act 1955. Ms Phochai was the de facto wife of the deceased, Mr Matthews, and no provision was made for her in his will. The major beneficiary of the estate was the testator’s youngest child, Greg Matthews. The District Court judge awarded Ms Phochai $1,000,000, but Greg appealed, contending the sum awarded should have been between $700,000 and $750,000. The appeal was heard on 17 November 2020 and this judgment was delivered on 18 December 2020. The appeal was allowed and an award of $750,000 substituted for the sum of $1,000,000 awarded to Ms Phochai. The court found that the Judge either made an error or failed to take the point into account, resulting in the award being excessive. The award of $1,000,000 to the respondent is vacated and an award of $750,000 substituted. This award bears greater proportionality to the much lesser awards made to Mark and Gina of $570,000 and $200,000. It would enable Ms Phochai to purchase a cheaper property than Hollinbrigg Place and have sufficient cash, including her own assets, to support herself. Alternatively, she might be able to retain the Hollinbrigg Place property (or similar) with her family paying market rent. Or she could readily rent a suitable property for the rest of her life and have sufficient to support herself.

Orders