P v S - [2019] NZHC 2608

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://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2019-409-000314

[2019] NZHC 2608

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Christchurch

BETWEEN

P

Appellant

AND

S

Respondent

Hearing: 2 October 2019

Appearances:

S Van Bohemen & A L Bayliss for Appellant J Avery & M Bell for Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr P, appeals one aspect of the reserved judgment of Judge A M Manuel in the Family Court at Christchurch, dated 15 May 2019.1

1 P v S [2019] NZFC 2907; reissued on 19 June 2019 with two numerical typographical errors fixed.

P v S [2019] NZHC 2608 [14 October 2019]

[2] In particular, Mr P appeals the Family Court Judge’s finding that the respondent, Ms S, is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 17 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) in the sum of $326,300 comprising:

(a)10 per cent of the $2.913 million increase in value of Mr P’s separate property shares in P Contracting Ltd (PCL) over the course of the relationship; and

(b)10 per cent of Mr P’s separate property savings account at separation, valued at $350,000.

The Family Court decision

[3] Judge Manuel began by setting out the background facts of the relationship between Mr P and Ms S. She described the parties as having a “short but eventful de facto relationship”.2 The parties met in Christchurch in mid-2011 and separated on 25 September 2014.3 When they met, Mr P was living in a home he owned at Brooklands. It had been damaged by the earthquakes in late-2010 and early 2011 and had been revalued at a “figure lower than the mortgage debt secured over it”.4

[4] Mr P was working in his company, PCL — a medium-sized civil construction company. PCL had been established by Mr P’s aunt and uncle in 1983 and by 2009 Mr P was the sole shareholder and director, having purchased PCL’s shares for
$460,000. When the parties met there was still a balance of the purchase price owing.5

[5] The financial years ending 2011 and 2012 were “lean ones for PCL”.6 In mid-2011, PCL began looking for a replacement contract engineer. Ms S was employed in June 2011 on a salary of $67,000 with fuel, a phone and a computer provided. She had an engineering degree but was described by the Judge as having “good engineering skills but no practical contracting experience”.7

2 At [1].
3 At [1] and [10].
4 At [11].
5 At [12].
6 At [13].
7 At [15].

[6] At the time the parties commenced their relationship in September 2011,…

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 P v S

Details

AGLC: P v S [2019] NZHC 2608
Case: [2019] NZHC 2608
Decision Date: 14 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

P appeals the Family Court's decision that S is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 17 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in the sum of $326,300 comprising: 10 per cent of the $2.913 million increase in value of P's separate property shares in P Contracting Ltd (PCL) over the course of the relationship; and 10 per cent of P's separate property savings account at separation, valued at $350,000. The High Court found that S had not met the threshold for "sustenance" in s 17(1) of the PRA and therefore the Family Court erred in law at [76] of its decision in awarding compensation to S. The appeal is allowed and the Family Court decision is quashed on this one discrete point.

Orders