Reid v Reid
[2014] NZHC 1323
•12 June 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2013-404-004293 [2014] NZHC 1323
BETWEEN AIDAN ROBERT REID
Appellant
AND
BRIDGETTE ETI REID First Respondent
DIANE JULIE LAFAIALII Second Respondent
Hearing: 26 February 2014 Appearances:
Appellant in person
J Adams for the First Respondent
P Webb for the Second RespondentJudgment:
12 June 2014
RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J
This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 12 June 2014 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:………………………….
Counsel/Solicitors:
J Adams, Barrister, Manukau
P Webb, Barrister, Manukau
Copy to Appellant
REID v REID [2014] NZHC 1323 [12 June 2014]
[1] Mr Reid appeals orders made by Judge (Jan) Walker made under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) dated 4 September 2013. Judge Walker’s judgment is almost 300 paragraphs long. Mr Reid is a litigant in person.
Background
[2] Mr and Mrs Reid began living together in 2001. In late 2004 they resolved to purchase a property at 8 and 8A Orbit Place. The property was to be a home for themselves and their (as yet unborn) children but included a self-contained unit for Mrs Reid’s mother, Mrs Lafaialii.
[3] As I understand it, Mr Reid’s credit record meant that the Bank was unwilling to lend him funds to purchase the property. For that reason the registered proprietors are Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii who own the property in equal shares, as tenants in common.
[4] More specifically, the $515,000 purchase price was funded in the following way:
(a) Mrs Lafaialii contributed $205,000 in cash;
(b)Mrs Reid borrowed a further $40,000 from her mother which formed part of her contribution;
(c) ASB (the Bank) granted a mortgage for the remaining $270,000 to Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii, who were required to be jointly and severally liable for it;
[5] At the same time there was a further $10,000 loan made to Mrs Reid which she says was used to pay off debts relating to a vehicle that had previously been owned by Mr Reid. This was added to the mortgage amount.
[6] Mr Reid’s income was, however, taken into account by the Bank when granting the mortgage.
[7] In January 2005 a property sharing agreement between Mr and Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii was drafted, relating to the financing of the Orbit Place property and the respective obligations of the parties. Mr Reid, however, refused to sign that agreement.
[8] Mr and Mrs Reid married on 5 March 2005.
[9] On 16 June 2005 Mr and Mrs Reid entered into a property sharing agreement under s 21 of the PRA. It was apparently prepared by Mr Reid’s legal advisers. It began by recording the way in which the purchase of the Orbit Place property had been financed (as I have set out above). Then, it said:
…
1.5 Aidan and Bridgette agree that the value of the property at 8 Orbit
Place as at the date of the agreement is $515,000.
1.6 Aidan and Bridgette are meeting the mortgage repayments on Orbit
Place jointly, contributing in equal shares.
1.7Aidan, Bridgette, and Diane contribute equally in 1/3 shares towards costs and outgoings on Orbit Place, including rates, insurance, maintenance and improvements.
[10] Next, the agreement sets out its “objectives”, as follows:
Aidan and Bridgette wish to enter an agreement pursuant to Section 21A Property (Relationships) Act1 (‘the Act’) that:
2.1Identifies the property that is from the date of this agreement and in the future, always to be separate property of each of them and preserve that property as the separate property of each of them.
2.2Records that each of them has, independent of the other, acquired property to which the other party has not contributed.
2.3Identifies property that is from the date of this agreement relationship property.
2.4Records the obligations of both parties for payment of mortgage and outgoings for Orbit Place including payments for rates, insurance, property maintenance, and improvements.
2.5 Records that Aidan is to acquire an equitable and legal interest in
Bridgette’s half share of Orbit Place as from the date of this
1 Notwithstanding this statement, it is clearly a s 21 agreement.
agreement, and provides a formula by which the value of that interest may be calculated.
2.6Aidan and Bridgette wish to contract out of the Act to the extent necessary to achieve these objectives pursuant to Section 21
Property (Relationships) Act.
[11] Part 3 of the agreement stipulates that:
3.1 The property set out in Schedule A is Aidan’s separate property.
3.2 The property set out in Schedule B is Bridgette’s separate property.
3.3 The property set out in Schedule C is relationship property.
3.4The parties agree that they will each continue to contribute to the mortgage repayments for Orbit Place in equal shares.
3.5The parties agree that they while they remain living at Orbit Place, they will each continue to pay 1/3 of the outgoings on the property including payments for insurance, rates, essential repairs and maintenance. The remaining 1/3 share of these costs is to be met by Diane.
3.6In the event that their relationship ends, or Orbit Place is sold, and their respective interests in Orbit Place are to be determined the parties agree as follows:
Aidan has acquired an equitable and legal interest in the half share of the property at Orbit Place owned by Bridgette, to the value and extent of the financial contributions made by him in reduction of the principal due under the mortgage on the property AND he is further entitled to a half share of Bridgette’s half share, of any increase in value of the property above the sum of $515,000 due to a general inflation in property value or capital gain as from the date of this agreement.
Aidan is to be entitled to receive a cash sum equivalent to the value of all payments made by him in reduction of the Bank mortgage principal on Orbit Place.
Aidan is entitled to a cash sum equivalent to a half share of Bridgette’s half share of any increase in value of Orbit Place over the sum of $515,000, due to a general rise in property values.
[12] At the end of June 2005, the January property sharing agreement involving Mrs Lafaialii was redrafted, removing Mr Reid as a party. It is not disputed that Mr Reid was not told that the agreement had been redrafted or that it had been signed by his wife and mother-in-law. That agreement also begins by setting out how the purchase of the Orbit Place property had been financed and that the Bank had been
prepared to provide “Bridgette with banking accommodation on the proviso that Diane and Bridgette enter in the Bank’s loan agreement and mortgage jointly and severally in the amount of $280,000.00”. Then, it said:
4.Diane and Bridgette have registered on the Title their respective interests in the property as tenants in common in the following shares:
(a) Diane as to a one-half share; and
(b) Bridgette as to a one-half share.
5.Bridgette shall have the exclusive right to occupy the principal dwelling of approximately 170m and Diane shall have the exclusive right to occupy the minor dwelling of approximately 60m .
6.Notwithstanding the registration on the title to the property as tenants in common in equal shares (Diane as to a one-half share and Bridgette as to a one-half share) Diane and Bridgette wish to record certain arrangements regarding their respective rights and entitlements to the property.
7.While the parties acknowledge that Diane and Bridgette are jointly and severally liable to pay all of the mortgage it is agreed as between themselves that Bridgette will be and will always remain solely liable to repay all of the mortgage including all outstanding principal and interest.
8.Bridgette indemnifies Diane from and against all claims by the mortgagee of the property in respect of all money which is owing from time to time under the said mortgage.
9.Unless Diane and Bridgette otherwise agree in writing Diane and Bridgette shall contribute proportionately to the property, Diane as to a one third share of rates, maintenance and improvements and Bridgette all of the mortgage repayments and as to a two thirds share of all outgoings and costs, rates, maintenance and improvements. The property is insured under one policy number with Diane paying a one third share of the premium and Bridgette as to a two third share of the premium. The property is to be kept insured at all times.
…
13.Upon any sale, transfer or other disposition of the property or any part thereof or any compulsory acquisition of the property or any part thereof the proceeds shall be applied as follows:
(a) In paying Land Agent’s commission;
(b) In paying the legal costs and disbursements in connection with the sale;
(c) As to a one half share to Diane;
(d) As to a one half share to Bridgette such one half share to be applied firstly to repay fully the mortgage to the Bank.
[13] In October 2005 Mrs Reid borrowed a further $25,000 from the Bank which she says was used to retire family debt. In 2006, Mrs Lafaialii borrowed $20,000. In July 2008 Mr Reid also took out two loans of $40,000 and $80,000, in order to establish his new business, which he operated through a company called Autohelp Ltd. He and his wife were the directors and shareholders of the company. The loans were secured over the Orbit Place property and guaranteed by Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii.
[14] In March 2011 Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii restructured their finances. As I understand it, this involved adding their outstanding personal indebtedness of approximately $20,000 and $8000 respectively to the mortgage. A further loan of
$20,000 made to Mr Reid’s business at around this time was also added to the
mortgage, which was also changed to interest only.
[15] In December 2011 Mr and Mrs Reid separated. It was agreed that the Orbit Place property should be put on the market. As at the date of separation the money owing to the Bank was:
(a) Mortgage of $310,392.23 (which included the loans that had been
made to Mrs Reid, Mrs Lafaialii and to Mr Reid’s business);
(b) Outstanding principal on (2008) business loan taken out by Mr Reid:
$74,380.11;
(c) Outstanding principal on further (2008) business loan taken out by Mr
Reid: $38,012.41.
[16] At this juncture it seems that Mr Reid’s company owed creditors
approximately $42,000.
[17] It appears that shortly following the Reids’ separation an offer of $670,000 was made on the Orbit Place property. However on 21 December 2011 Mr Reid
registered a notice of claim under the PRA against the property. A sale did not eventuate at that time.
[18] Mr Reid also says that at around the time of their separation his wife agreed to pay him $60,000 in settlement of the relationship property issues between them. Mrs Reid accepted that there was such a discussion but said that her agreement to pay that amount was predicated on Mr Reid assuming liability to the Bank for the business debts.
[19] On 24 January 2012 Mrs Lafaialii obtained a loan of $23,000 and Mrs Reid obtained loan of $18,000 which she used to pay off joint credit cards and a hire purchase (relationship property) debt. These loans were secured against Orbit Place.
[20] On 29 June 2012 Mrs Reid issued relationship property proceedings in the Manukau Family Court. For obvious reasons, Mrs Lafaialii was named as a party to that claim. Mr Reid’s Notice of Claim over the property was subsequently removed by the Family Court. On 9 October 2012 Mr Reid issued proceedings in the High Court against both Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii.2
[21] On 15 October 2012 the Orbit Place property was placed on the market. It sold for $725,000 on 18 November 2012. Settlement occurred on 24 January 2013.
[22] Because Mr Reid was neither a mortgagor nor a registered proprietor, the disposition of settlement funds was dealt with between the Bank and the solicitors for Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii. Unsurprisingly, the Bank sought to apply the funds to settle all outstanding indebtedness that had been secured against the property, including the loans to Mr Reid’s business and his business overdraft and loans to Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii.3 Mr Reid said, and I accept, that he was not kept in the
loop about these matters.
2 Those proceedings were struck out by Associate Judge Doogue on 8 May 2013: Reid v Reid
[2013] NZHC 1019.
3 The settlement statement from the Bank said that repayment of those amounts would be required
“unless alternative arrangements are made”.
[23] In any event, the settlement funds were applied in accordance with THE
BANK’s settlement statement, namely to repay:
(a) the core mortgage debt of $310,392.23 (which included a personal debt owed by Mrs Lafaialii of $8,311.39);
(b)additional daily interest owing on the mortgage as at the date of settlement of $342.28;
(c) the outstanding principal owing on the personal loan to Mrs Lafaialii of $21,245.37;
(d)additional daily interest owing on that loan as at the date of settlement of $20.08;
(e) the outstanding principal owing on the personal loan made to Mrs
Reid of $15,074.17;
(f) daily interest on that loan as at the date of settlement of $16.62; (g) the amount owing on Mrs Reid’s ASB overdraft of $366.43;
(h)the $71,582.17 outstanding principal owing on Mr Reid’s business loan of $80,000;
(i) daily interest on that loan as at the date of settlement of $236.81;
(j)the $36,673.85 outstanding principal owing on Mr Reid’s business loan of $40,000;
(k) daily interest on that loan as at the date of settlement of $121.32;
(l) the amount owing on Mr Reid’s business overdraft account:
$7,931.67;
(m) an administration fee of $100; and
(n) an urgent release fee of $25.
[24] These amounts totalled $464,128.00, including Mrs Lafaialii’s separate debt
of $29,576.84.
Judge Walker’s decision
[25] As I have said, the Family Court proceedings were instigated by Mrs Reid prior to the sale of Orbit Place. The central matters at issue were summarised by the learned Family Court Judge at [20] of her decision as follows:
(a) The property at 8 and 8A Orbit Place and how the balance of funds from the sale of that property be divided.
(b) The division of other relationship property and/or liability for debt.
[26] Mr Reid’s position was set out between [97] and [136] of the judgment under
appeal. The Judge noted (at [134]) that he was seeking:
(1) Payment of $60,000.00 – $30,000.00 from both Ms Reid and Ms Lafaialii – for payment pursuant to s 25 of the Act. This related to the discussions at the time of separation.
(2) An order that Ms Reid pay him a full share of half the debts of the business at separation, being $21,225.57.
(3) That Ms Reid pay him the sum of $20,000.00 in compensation for her deliberate actions causing dissipation of the business asset, under s 18C of the Act.
(4) That Ms Reid pay him the sum of $20,000.00 in compensation for the effects of the gross misconduct which occurred in regard to the property, under s 18A of the Act.
(5) That Ms Reid pay him the sum of $20,000.00 in compensation for the effects of the gross misconduct that has occurred in regard to the business, under s 18A of the Act.
[27] At [135] the Judge noted that the amounts claimed by Mr Reid totalled
$141,225.57 from which he said should be deducted $68,131.99 which comprised Mrs Reid’s half-share from the sale of the business and her half-share of the business loan. At [136] she said:
Accordingly, in his calculations Ms Reid would owe him $38,131.99 and
Ms Lafaialii $30,000.00.
[28] Judge Walker’s key findings were, however, as follows:
(a) the relevant date for determining each party’s entitlement should be the date of settlement, due to the subsequent indebtedness incurred by the parties after separation: [192]. The Judge also said, however, that it would have made little difference to the outcome which date was chosen: [201];
(b)neither party had (in the end) formally sought to have the s 21 agreement set aside;
(c) although Mrs Reid was prima facie liable under the s 21 agreement for the ASB mortgage, Mr Reid’s later business loans and overdraft from ASB meant that there had been intermingling to the extent that the mortgage debt was no longer Mrs Reid’s separate debt but had become relationship debt: [285];
(d)mortgage payments were made from a joint bank account in which Mr and Mrs Reid’s funds were intermingled. Therefore it was not possible to work out what Mr Reid’s individual mortgage payments were: ([204]). Nor had he provided the Court with any evidence about these separate payments;
(e) the outstanding $8,311.39 principal on Mrs Lafaialii’s personal loan (which had been subsumed in the mortgage) should not form part of the relationship property debt: [197];
(f) in any event, there had been no reduction in the principal between
2005 and 2011/2012. Rather the mortgage had increased (due to the
various further loans secured against the property) from $280,000 to
$422,784.75 (at separation) or $434,551.16 (at sale date): [208];4
(g) the $40,000 loan made to Mrs Reid by Mrs Lafaialii at the time the
property was purchased was Mrs Reid’s separate debt: [226].
(h) Mrs Reid’s provisional “half share” of the value of the house was
$348,768.97 ($725,000 minus $27,462.07 (expenses of sale such as
land agents’ commission, legal costs, rates and levies and water rates)
= $697,537.93, divided by two): [210];
(i)the post relationship borrowing by Mrs Reid was utilised to pay relationship debt: [215];
(j)the relationship debts for which Mr and Mrs Reid are equally liable were the debts set out in the ASB settlement statement, less the
$29,576.84 amount owed by Mrs Lafaialii’s personally, namely a total
of $434,551.16: [221];
(k) given that Mrs Reid’s half share of the property was calculated to be
$348,768.97, her equity in the property was negative (- $85,782.19): [229];
(l)Mrs Lafaialii’s personal borrowings of $29,556.76 were to be deducted from her half share of $348,768.97, leaving her with an entitlement of $319,212.21. Once the balance of the sale proceeds ($234,695.22) was credited to her, she was still owed $84,516.99 by Mr and Mrs Reid: [230];
(m) the shares in Mr Reid’s company were relationship property but no
value could be attributed to them [236] and [243];
(n) the company debts were not relationship property: [260];
4 These figures in fact include the couple’s total indebtedness to the Bank. But the core mortgage
debt had also increased.
(o)there was no enforceable agreement between the parties that Mr Reid would be paid $60,000: [258];
(p) Mr Reid’s claims for compensation under ss 18C and 18A of the PRA
had not been made out and were declined: [270], [276] and [280].
[29] The upshot of all this was that Judge Walker ordered that all moneys held in the trust account of Mrs Reid’s lawyers, being the net proceeds of the sale of the property, including interest, were to be paid to Mrs Lafaialii.5 She held that Mr Reid and Mrs Reid then owed Mrs Lafaialii a further $42,258.50 each. Mr Reid’s share of relationship property is therefore a $42,258.50 debt.
This appeal
[30] As I have said, Mr Reid was self-represented in his appeal, as he had been before Judge Walker and before Associate Judge Doogue. Although he had managed at one point to secure a grant of legal aid for the appeal, his relationship with his assigned counsel proved difficult and his lawyer was given leave to withdraw. I am not the first judicial officer to observe that the absence of legal advice has proved to be unfortunate.
[31] Mr Reid’s submissions made it clear that he was not happy with any of Judge Walker’s decision. Nonetheless my perception is that his principal complaints related to the Court’s approach to the s 21 agreement, the property sharing agreement and the alleged oral agreement that he would be paid $60,000. I deal with these in
turn.6
[32] As will be evident from my summary above, the upshot of the learned Family Court Judge’s analysis is that Mr Reid is jointly liable with Mrs Reid for the mortgage debt. This outcome is, of course, at odds with the s 21 agreement, which
says that the debt is Mrs Reid’s separate property.
5 As I understand it, this has already happened.
6 Mr Reid’s claims under ss 18A and 18C were not really the subject of argument before me and I therefore do not propose to deal with them in this judgment, other than to say that Judge Walker was, in my view, right to reject them, for the reasons given by her.
[33] I did not hear submissions on whether it was open to Judge Walker to proceed in a way that was inconsistent with the s 21 agreement and nor do I consider that such submissions would have been of any assistance to Mr Reid. Rather, it seems to me that the better and more relevant question from his perspective is whether he has been prejudiced by the Judge’s approach and/or by her application of the property sharing agreement.
[34] As far as Mr Reid’s entitlements under the s 21 agreement are concerned, it firstly provides that he has an equitable and legal interest in Mrs Reid’s half share “to the value and extent of the financial contributions made by him in reduction of the principal due under the mortgage”. In that respect, however, the position before me is the same as it was before Judge Walker. In short:
(a) due to the intermingling of funds those contributions cannot be
quantified and therefore Mr Reid’s interest cannot be valued; and
(b)in any event, the amount of principal owing under the mortgage had increased rather than reduced by the time of separation and it had increased even further by the time of sale.
[35] There is accordingly no basis upon which Mr Reid could have been or could be separately compensated for his mortgage contributions.
[36] But cl 3.6 also entitled Mr Reid to a cash sum equivalent to 50 per cent of Mrs Reid’s half share of any increase in value of the property above the purchase price of $515,000. And it is not in dispute that the value of the house increased by
$210,000 (from $515,000 to $725,000) during the relevant period. Mrs Reid’s half share of that increase would be $105,000 and Mr Reid’s share would therefore be
$52,500. All this was noted by the Judge in her decision.
[37] Putting to one side the fact that after repaying the mortgage Mrs Reid would, in fact, have had no money from which to pay Mr Reid this $52,500 amount, he would, in any event, have been left with his debts to the Bank of well over $100,000, namely, the business loans that were repaid out of settlement funds on 24 January
2013. And even if he had applied all of the $52,500 to repay that indebtedness, he would have been left owing a net amount to the Bank that was in fact greater than the debt he now owes Mrs Lafaialii.7
[38] I record that although Mr Reid appeared to think that his business debts were owed by Mrs Lafaialii and Mrs Reid (because of their guarantees) and that he did not therefore benefit from their repayment, I reject that argument. The loans were made for the purposes of his business and he was liable for them. Any expectation by Mr Reid that he should not be so regarded because his mother-in-law would have been required to shoulder the burden had the loans remained unpaid and the guarantee been called up is, frankly, specious.
[39] Mr Reid also submitted that, if he had received this $52,500 payment (or the slightly greater sum of $60,000 which he said had been orally agreed) he would have been able to refinance his business and render it viable for sale.8 But that seems to me to be highly speculative. As I have said, the reality is that there were business loans of over $110,000 which were secured by the Orbit Place property. It seems to me to be highly improbable that the ASB would have been willing somehow to roll over or refinance those loans once the security had been sold, particularly given that the business had further debts of over $40,000. The factual narrative in my view
makes it clear that the business was failing and had been for some time. Even with the best will in the world (and $60,000) I do not consider that Mr Reid would have been able to turn that around.
[40] Mr Reid also had a sense of disquiet about the property relationship agreement, which he perceives was secretly entered into between his wife and his mother-in-law. As Judge Walker recorded (at [115] – [117]) he considers that the operation of the agreement resulted in an unfair distribution to which he had not
agreed.
7 The combined debt to the Bank was over $110,000. If $52,500 (or even $60,000) is subtracted from that he would have been left owing the ASB over $55,000, as compared with his $42,000 debt to Mrs Lafaialii.
8 See [107] of the decision under appeal.
[41] The principal difference between the s 21 agreement (which was drafted by Mr Reid’s advisers and which he signed, after receiving legal advice) and the property sharing agreement is that the latter makes it clear that Mrs Lafaialii was to receive one half of the proceeds from the sale of Orbit Place, with no liability for whatever mortgage amount was outstanding at the time. As I have said, Mr Reid perceives this as unfair and says that his understanding was that the liability would be shared.
[42] I accept that it is conceivable that, in ignorance of the existence or terms of the property sharing agreement, Mr Reid may have thought (or hoped) that Mrs Lafaialii would have borne responsibility for some of the remaining mortgage on sale because, as far as the Bank was concerned, she and Mrs Reid were jointly and severally liable for it. But I do not consider that such a view would have been a reasonable one. Importantly, the s 21 agreement itself (which Mr Reid did know about) neither says nor implies that. Rather, its terms make it clear that it is Mr and Mrs Reid who were responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments. Moreover, and as the preamble to the s 21 agreement records, Mr Reid knew that Mrs Lafaialii had contributed essentially half the purchase price in cash, whereas Mrs Reid (and he) had contributed only the amount of the ASB loan.
[43] Accordingly, and apart from any responsibility for loans subsequently made by the Bank lending to Mrs Lafaialii (which Judge Walker expressly took into account and deducted from the relationship property debt owed to her) it would be contrary to common sense for Mrs Lafaialii to have agreed to have assumed any future liability under the mortgage. There is no evidence that suggests that she intended to gift part of her half share in the property to Mr and Mrs Reid. Any view that Mr Reid might have had to the contrary could not sensibly have been derived from the agreement that he signed or on any ordinary notions of fairness and equity.
[44] In my view Judge Walker was correct to hold that Mrs Lafaialii was entitled to receive half of the sale price of $348,768.96, less the amount of her personal debt to the Bank. Moreover, for the reasons I have just given, that was also the fair result. The fact that Mr and Mrs Reid ended up with less than nothing is not a function of some inequity in the property sharing agreement but rather of their excessive
indebtedness to the Bank, which had been secured (in the main) by the Orbit Place property. The Bank was entitled to settle that indebtedness out of the proceeds of sale. And because of the Bank’s position of priority under the mortgage and other loan instruments it is Mrs Lafaialii, not Mr Reid, who has, in fact, borne the resulting loss.
[45] It was my sense from listening to Mr Reid’s submissions that underlying his concerns was a feeling of disenfranchisement in relation to these relationship property matters. This feeling no doubt has its origins in the fact that he was never a registered proprietor of the family home. And it would subsequently (and consequently) have been reinforced both by the existence (unbeknownst to him) of the property sharing agreement between Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii and by his ultimate exclusion from the sale and settlement of the house. I note that Judge Walker made observations of a similar kind at [130] of the judgment under appeal.
[46] But however real or understandable Mr Reid’s sense of disempowerment might be, it does not mean that a legal wrong has been done or that a remedy for him exists. My own view of the matter is that Judge Walker’s analysis has been generous to him. Whatever the alternative, hypothetical, scenarios put forward by Mr Reid about his lost opportunity to refinance his business, the inescapable truth is that his, his wife’s, and his business’s liabilities considerably outweighed their assets. A relationship property claim cannot conjure away that reality.
[47] Accordingly, and while I acknowledge that Mr Reid is unable yet to perceive it in this way, it seems to me that he has gained far more than he has lost from the way in which the Family Court has chosen to deal with the matter.
[48] The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Mrs Reid and Mrs Lafaialii are entitled to their costs on a 2B basis if that is something that they wish to pursue.
Rebecca Ellis J
0
1