Legal Research
Cases
Poros v Bax

Poros v Bax

Case [2020] NZHC 1602 7 July 2020

Jurisdiction

Family Court Act 1980

Property (Relationships) Act 1976

Family Proceedings Act 1980

Relationship Property

Settlement of Property

Void Marriage

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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 HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2019-419-0145

[2020] NZHC 1602

BETWEEN
SPYRIDON POROS

Appellant

AND

KYLIE BRIDGET BAX

First respondent

HELEN-GAYE BAX and WILLIAM

GRAHAM BAX as trustees of the GOLDEYE TRUST

Second respondents

Date of hearing: 15–16 June 2020 (further submissions 29 June and 6 July 2020)

Appearances:

J D Noble and IJM MacKenzie for the appellant DAT Chambers QC for the respondents

Date of judgment:

7 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 July 2020 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
DAT Chambers QC, Auckland Boyle Mathieson, Auckland

POROS v BAX [2020] NZHC 1602 [7 July 2020]

[1] Spyridon Poros appeals the 14 May 2019 decision of Judge G S Collin in the Family Court at Hamilton, determining division of his and Kylie Bax’s relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.1

[2] After specifying such of the parties’ relationship property as was thereafter to be their separate property, including a cash wash-up for the differential in values,2 the Judge allocated half the value of the balance of their relationship property to Mr Poros.3 That value included a $2.306 m debt owed by Ms Bax to the Goldeye Trust, of which she and others claiming through her are beneficiaries, and omitted the Trust’s half-share of a $3.245 m property in Auckland’s Avondale. In net terms, the Judge calculated the relationship property’s value as comprising an outstanding relationship debt of $99,463.00 to the Trust.4

[3] On appeal, Mr Poros seeks correction of what he asserts are multiple errors in the Judge’s identification of the parties’ relationship property, predominantly in reliance on the Family Court’s powers under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. After dissolution of a marriage, s 182 enables the Family Court to vary settlements of the parties’ property.

[4] Ms Bax cross-appeals the Judge’s contended error in refusing to set aside the Family Court’s dissolution of Mr Poros’ and Ms Bax’s marriage in Las Vegas, Nevada,5 which was declared void “ab initio” (from the beginning) by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, on grounds of non-dissolution of Mr Poros’ earlier marriage to another woman in Greece.6 Thus s 182 would have no application, as there would be no dissolution order for it to attach.

Background

[5] Mr Poros, a photographer, and Ms Bax, a model, met at a United States’ photoshoot in September 2003. They married in August 2005 and separated in May

1      Poros v Bax [2019] NZFC 874.
2 At [284].
3 At [285].
4      At Schedule B.
5 At [61].
6      Kylie Bax v Spyridon Poros D-17-558938-L (NV 2018).

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 Poros v Bax

Details

AGLC: Poros v Bax [2020] NZHC 1602
Case: [2020] NZHC 1602
Decision Date: 7 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Spyridon Poros appeals against the 14 May 2019 decision of Judge G S Collin in the Family Court at Hamilton, which determined the division of his and Kylie Bax’s relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. After specifying the parties’ separate property, including a cash wash-up for the differential in values, the Judge allocated half the value of the balance of their relationship property to Mr Poros. That value included a $2.306 m debt owed by Ms Bax to the Goldeye Trust, of which she and others claiming through her are beneficiaries, and omitted the Trust’s half-share of a $3.245 m property in Auckland’s Avondale. In net terms, the Judge calculated the relationship property’s value as comprising an outstanding relationship debt of $99,463.00 to the Trust. On appeal, Mr Poros seeks correction of what he asserts are multiple errors in the Judge’s identification of the parties’ relationship property, predominantly in reliance on the Family Court’s powers under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Ms Bax cross-appeals the Judge’s contended error in refusing to set aside the Family Court’s dissolution of Mr Poros’ and Ms Bax’s marriage in Las Vegas, Nevada, which was declared void “ab initio” (from the beginning) by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, on grounds of non-dissolution of Mr Poros’ earlier marriage to another woman in Greece. The Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Orders