Preston v Preston

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 10/2021
[2021] NZSC 42

BETWEEN	KATHARINE ELIZABETH PRESTON Applicant
AND	GRANT LEE PRESTON First Respondent GRANT LEE PRESTON AND FISHER PARTNERS TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE GRANT PRESTON FAMILY TRUST Second Respondents

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	V T M Bruton QC, I M Hutcheson, N L Walker and H L S Bergin for the Applicant J M McCleary and R C van den Broek for Respondents
Judgment:	12 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Preston v Preston [2020] NZCA 679).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Applicant
Buddle McCleary Kennedy, Whakatāne for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Katharine Elizabeth Preston brought an application against her ex-husband, Grant Lee Preston, and the Fisher Partners Trustees Limited, as trustees of the Grant Preston Family Trust, seeking an award of part of the Trust's assets under section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, where William Young, O’Regan, and Ellen France JJ were the presiding judges. The central legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing Ms Preston's appeal against the High Court's decision, which had rejected her claim for an equitable share of the Trust's assets.

The court needed to determine if the Court of Appeal had properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant leave to appeal. This involved assessing whether there was a serious question of law of general public importance that warranted the appeal, and if the Court of Appeal had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The legal principles at play included the interpretation of section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act and the discretionary nature of granting leave to appeal under section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The court also had to consider the effect of the Trust deed and the precedents set by other cases involving similar statutory provisions.

In granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court found that there was indeed a serious question of law concerning the interpretation of section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act. The Court of Appeal had not adequately addressed the specific legal issues and had failed to provide comprehensive reasons for its decision, which led the Supreme Court to conclude that the appeal should be heard. The Court held that the appeal raised an important point of law regarding the extent to which the Family Proceedings Act could be used to claim assets from a discretionary trust. The court determined that the Court of Appeal's decision needed further examination to ensure consistency with the principles of family law and equitable distribution.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established