Patel v Patel - [2014] NZHC 2410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-002593 [2014] NZHC 2410

BETWEEN
RENUKA PATEL

Plaintiff

AND

NARENDRA HIRABHAI LALABHAI PATEL

First Defendant

PRAFUL HIRABHAI PATEL Second Defendant

VIADUCT WATERFRONT INVESTMENT LIMITED Third Defendant

CITYMED HEALTH CARE LIMITED Fourth Defendant

CHANCERY PROPERTY INVESTMENT NO. 1 LIMITED Fifth Defendant

CHANCERY PROPERTY INVESTMENT NO. 2 LIMITED Sixth Defendant

CHANCERY PROPERTY INVESTMENT NO. 3 LIMITED Seventh Defendant

CHANCERY PROPERTY INVESTMENT NO. 4 LIMITED Eighth Defendant

CHANCERY PROPERTY INVESTMENT NO. 5 LIMITED Nineth Defendant

APEX MEGA CENTRE LIMITED Tenth Defendant

Hearing: 10 and 11 September 2014

PATEL v PATEL [2014] NZHC 2410 [2 October 2014]

Appearances:
DAT Chambers QC, E M Eggleston and C A Allen for Plaintiff

S E Cameron for First Defendant

M Heard and S Ma Ching for Second to Ninth Defendants

J D McBride for 10th Defendant

P R Cogswell for Third Party

Judgment:

2 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

Background and relevant procedural history

[1] The plaintiff Renuka Patel (Mrs Patel) and the first defendant, Narendra Patel (Mr Patel) were married in 1977 and separated in 2011. They are domiciled in Australia. They are estranged. Previously, Mrs Patel was living in the family home in Sydney with at least one child of the relationship. As I understand the position, she now lives in rented accommodation. Mrs Patel commenced proceedings in Australia under the Family Law Act 1975, an act of the Commonwealth of Australia, seeking orders for the division of property, spousal maintenance and child support (“the Australian proceedings”).

[2] The principal assets which are at issue in the proceedings before this Court include shares in New Zealand registered property-owning companies having a total value of some NZ$30 million. These shares appear notionally to be held by Praful Patel (Mr Praful Patel), the second defendant, who is Mr Patel’s brother. A further claim by Mrs Patel in this proceeding relates to shares in or assets owned by another New Zealand company, the 10th defendant Apex Mega Centre Limited. Shares in that company appear to be held by a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the interests of a third party that Mrs Patel maintains is
implicated in this proceeding, Mr Muslim Dharamshi (Mr Dharamshi).

[3] So far as other property involved in the matrimonial claim made by Mrs Patel in the Australian proceedings is concerned, as I understand it this comprises one residential property in Sydney and the balance sale proceeds of the previous family

home, a commercial property in Sydney which operates a BP service station, various bank accounts in Switzerland and Singapore said to contain deposits equivalent to NZ$8 million, and other bank accounts in New Zealand, Australia, the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, containing the equivalent of approximately NZ$450,000. There is also said to be other property valued at over $750,000 including motor vehicles and the shares in a partnership.

[4] At the heart of the proceeding before this Court are equitable claims by Mrs Patel asserting her…

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 Patel v Patel

Details

AGLC: Patel v Patel [2014] NZHC 2410
Case: [2014] NZHC 2410
Decision Date: 2 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns matrimonial property proceedings brought by Renuka Patel (Mrs Patel) against her estranged husband Narendra Patel (Mr Patel) and several associated companies. The proceedings were consolidated in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, where nine interlocutory applications were heard over two days. The central issue was whether Mrs Patel could establish a beneficial interest in the shares of the defendant companies and their assets, or whether these were held in trust for her former husband, Mr Patel, or his interests. The applications included a stay of proceedings by Mr Patel due to non-payment of an earlier costs award by Mrs Patel, an order restraining Mr Praful Patel (Mr Patel’s brother) from further participation in the proceeding, variation of interim orders by the company defendants, tailored discovery against a non-party, and summary judgment or security for costs by Apex Mega Centre Limited. The court dismissed Mr Patel’s application for a stay, ordering instead that $10,935.80 owed by Mr Praful Patel to Mrs Patel be paid into Court and transferred to Mr Patel. The application by Mrs Patel to restrain Mr Praful Patel was also dismissed, with an order that Mr Praful Patel pay the sum into Court, which would then be transferred to Mr Patel. The application by the company defendants for undertakings as to damages was dismissed, and the application for non-party discovery by Mrs Patel was withdrawn. The court granted summary judgment to Apex Mega Centre Limited, ruling that Mrs Patel’s claims against it were unsupported by evidence and that none of her causes of action could succeed. Costs on the summary judgment application were reserved.

Orders