MR JONES AND MS WHITE - [2024] NZHC 3410

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-000114

[2024] NZHC 3410

UNDER The Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

MR JONES

Appellant

AND

MS WHITE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 October 2024

Counsel:

D D Vincent as Litigation Guardian for Appellant V A Nathan and J M Greally for Respondent

Judgment:

15 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

[1] Mr Jones appeals a decision of the Family Court finding that the parties were in a qualifying relationship under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and making orders for division of their relationship property and the sale of the family home.1

The relationship

[2] In the 1980s the parties were in a relationship. They had a daughter together shortly before separating in 1989. Mr Jones entered into a new relationship, and had a son with his new partner in December 1989.

1 Fictitious names have been used in this judgment to describe the appellant and the respondents;
[White] v [Jones] [2023] NZFC 1100 [Decision under appeal].

JONES v WHITE [2024] NZHC 3410 [15 November 2024]

[3] In 1995 Mr Jones purchased a property in Lower Hutt (the property). In the late 1990s Mr Jones and Ms White resumed their relationship. In 2000, Ms White and their daughter moved into the property. From 2002 onwards, Mr Jones’s son also moved into the property.

[4] The relationship involved several brief periods of separation whereby Ms White would leave the family home for periods no longer than three to four weeks. The relationship finally ended on 6 April 2018, when Ms White moved out of the family property.

Family Court proceedings

[5] Ms White sought orders for the division of their property in the Family Court. The hearing was set down for two days commencing 2 February 2023.
Ms Annette Gray acted as Mr Jones’s litigation guardian.2

[6] On 3 February 2023, Judge Montague gave the decision under appeal.3 The Judge ruled on three issues:

[8] Issue 1: Were the parties in a qualifying de facto relationship pursuant to s 2D of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976?

[9] Issue 2: If so, was it a relationship of long duration and equal sharing of relationship property applies pursuant to s 11 of the Act or one of three years or less and therefore one of short duration pursuant to s 14A of the Act, or alternatively, should it be treated as one of short duration pursuant to s 2E(1)(b)(ii) of the Act?

[10] Issue 3: If one of long duration were there extraordinary circumstances that make equal sharing repugnant to justice?

[7] Ms White argued that the parties were in a qualifying de facto relationship for the duration of their 18-year relationship.4 She sought 50 per cent of the relationship property including the property…

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 MR JONES AND MS WHITE

Details

AGLC: MR JONES AND MS WHITE [2024] NZHC 3410
Case: [2024] NZHC 3410
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v White, Mr Jones appealed a decision by the Family Court that he and Ms White were in a qualifying de facto relationship under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Family Court had ordered the division of their relationship property and the sale of the family home. Mr Jones argued that the parties were not in a qualifying relationship, or that extraordinary circumstances justified a non-equal division, or that they had an oral agreement to contract out of the Act.

The High Court found that the Family Court had correctly concluded that the parties were in a qualifying de facto relationship. The Court considered all the circumstances, including the duration and nature of the relationship, financial interdependence, mutual commitment, and care of the children. The Court found that Mr Jones had not proved the existence of an oral contracting out agreement. It also found that there were no extraordinary circumstances making equal sharing repugnant to justice.

The Court dismissed Mr Jones's procedural complaints, finding that the Family Court had taken all reasonable steps to ensure a fair hearing. It also found that the Family Court's factual findings were not wrong and that there was no procedural impropriety.

The appeal was dismissed and the parties were ordered to file cost memoranda.

Orders