Peterson v Mills - [2020] NZHC 2400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2019-470-126

[2020] NZHC 2400

BETWEEN
CARL JAMES PETERSON

First appellant

LYNETTE JOY MILLS
Second appellant

THE PETERSON/MILLS PARTNERSHIP
Third appellant

AND

GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS

Respondent

Hearing: 20 July 2020

Appearances:

First, second and third appellants in person J R Sparrow for the respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 16 September 2020 at 11.30am.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Parties/Solicitors
First, second and third appellants in person Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga

PETERSON v MILLS [2020] NZHC 2400 [16 September 2020]

Summary

[1] Mr Graham Mills and Ms Lynette Mills separated. Mr Carl Peterson, Ms Mills’ friend and now personal partner, then agreed to buy Mr Mills’ share of two properties. It was agreed that Ms Mills, who also signed the agreement, would retain business assets on the properties. But ASB Bank declined to allow Mr Mills’ overdraft liabilities to transfer to Mr Peterson. Mr Peterson and Ms Mills sued Mr Mills. Both parties agreed the Agreement had been cancelled but disagreed on who cancelled it and when. The late Judge A P Christiansen made orders under s 43 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the Act) for the sale of one of the properties and application of the proceeds to the ASB mortgage and overdraft and to net debts between the parties.1 Mr Peterson and Ms Mills appeal those orders.

[2] Judge Christiansen’s orders represent a pragmatic solution to the situation but were not explicit in some respects. I clarify and expand the Judge’s orders, making explicit the transfer of title from Mr Mills to Mr Peterson and ordering any interest earned by Mr Mills on the $40,000 he used from the overdraft facility be returned to Mr Peterson. That interest and the $40,000 should be transferred to Mr Peterson as the first step to allow him capital to sell one of the properties as ordered.

What happened?

[3] The facts are set out at more length in Judge Christiansen’s judgments.2 In summary, Mr and Ms Mills were in a long-term business relationship and a de facto personal relationship. The business involved breeding and marketing miniature Highland cattle as well as bed and breakfast lodging and some logging activities. About 2010, they separated. There has been no relationship property division. In October 2014 they started negotiating a division of their assets. The primary assets were two rural properties at Ruatiti and Porongahau, near Waipukurau, which were subject to three mortgages with ASB Bank. There was also a digger.

[4] In May 2014, Ms Mills met Mr Peterson. In May 2015 Mr Peterson agreed to buy Mr Mills’ half share of two properties for $100,000 with a $50,000 deposit to be

1 Peterson v Mills [2019] NZDC 21874 (Peterson v Mills (No 2)).
2 Peterson v Mills [2019] NZDC 9128 (Peterson…

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 Peterson v Mills

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Mills [2020] NZHC 2400
Case: [2020] NZHC 2400
Decision Date: 16 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peterson and Mills brought an appeal against orders made by the District Court in relation to a property sale agreement. The High Court was required to determine whether the appeal should be allowed, and if so, what orders should replace those made by the District Court. The appeal hinged on whether the Agreement was properly cancelled and who had the right to cancel it. The Court also considered whether the digger, which was claimed by both parties, should be included in the sale. The Court found that the appeal should be allowed in part and clarified and expanded upon the orders made by the District Court. The Court ordered the title of the properties to be transferred to Peterson, Mills to return the $40,000 with interest, and Peterson to sell the Ruatiti property within three months. The Court also confirmed the District Court's decision on costs. The Court did not find any basis to overturn the District Court's decision on costs and ordered that costs for the appeal would lie where they fall.

Orders