Legal Research
Cases
Remnant v Mills

Remnant v Mills

Case [2020] NZHC 3414 18 December 2020

Contractual Interpretation

Family Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000268

[2020] NZHC 3414

BETWEEN
HEATHER IRENE REMNANT

Plaintiff

AND

JEFFREY HARGEN MILLS

Defendant

Hearing: 18 November 2020

Appearances:

A W Watkins and C M Hanafin for Plaintiff T J Flintoff for Defendant

Judgment:

18 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

REMNANT v MILLS [2020] NZHC 3414 [18 December 2020]

The application and issues

[1] The plaintiff (Heather) and the defendant (Jeffrey) resorted to litigation to resolve relationship property disputes following the break-up of their marriage. In the course of that they went to mediation and reached a full and final settlement which they recorded in an agreement under s 21A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act). Jeffrey has not paid $709,375.05 owed to Heather under the agreement. Heather applies for summary judgment to recover the debt.

[2] Jeffrey opposes summary judgment. He has applied to the Family Court to set aside the agreement under s 21J of the Act on the ground that to give effect to it would cause serious injustice. The serious injustice is said to arise because:

(a)he suffered from a mental impairment at mediation; and

(b)the agreement conferred on Heather a benefit greater than her legal entitlement.

[3]Heather argues that Jeffrey has no arguable defence to her claim because:

(a)the facts of the agreement, its terms and Jeffrey’s failure to pay what is owed are not disputed;

(b)there is no reasonable prospect Jeffrey’s application to set aside the agreement will succeed; and

(c)the agreement is enforceable by way of summary judgment until the agreement is set aside.

[4]The issues are:

(a)has Heather shown there is no reasonably arguable case that Jeffrey’s application to set aside the agreement will succeed;

(b)if there is no reasonably arguable case, should I exercise my discretion to refuse summary judgment.

[5]For the reasons that follow, I find:

(a)Heather has shown there is not a reasonably arguable case that Jeffrey’s application to set aside the agreement will succeed; and

(b)I should not exercise my discretion to refuse summary judgment.

The facts

[6] Heather and Jeffrey commenced their relationship in 2005. They were married in September 2012 and separated in June 2015. Their marriage has been dissolved. Jeffrey has remarried.

[7] In November 2016, Heather commenced proceedings in the Family Court to resolve property disputes. Those proceedings were transferred to the High Court in May 2018.

[8] In August 2018, Jeffrey was diagnosed with incurable stage 4 renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases. He underwent a craniotomy to resect brain tumours and kidney removal surgery. He received radiation treatment after the removal of tumours. He has at times had difficulties adjusting to medications.

[9] On 21 January 2020, Heather and Jeffrey entered into a partial relationship property settlement agreement which excluded from its scope listed property including…

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 Remnant v Mills

Details

AGLC: Remnant v Mills [2020] NZHC 3414
Case: [2020] NZHC 3414
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Remnant v Mills is a case between Heather Irene Remnant (the plaintiff) and Jeffrey Hargen Mills (the defendant) in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The case revolves around relationship property disputes following the breakup of their marriage. Heather and Jeffrey entered into a full and final settlement agreement under s 21A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, which was signed by both parties and their respective lawyers. Jeffrey, however, has not paid the $709,375.05 owed to Heather under the agreement. Heather applied for summary judgment to recover the debt.

The legal issues in this case are whether Heather has shown that there is no reasonably arguable case that Jeffrey's application to set aside the agreement will succeed, and if there is no reasonably arguable case, whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse summary judgment.

The court found that Heather has shown there is not a reasonably arguable case that Jeffrey's application to set aside the agreement will succeed, and it should not exercise its discretion to refuse summary judgment. The court based its decision on the following factors:

1. The terms of the agreement were clear and easily understandable.
2. There is no evidence that Jeffrey was significantly mentally impaired during the mediation, and he understood the terms of the agreement.
3. The agreement represented a substantial compromise on Heather's position, and it was not unreasonable in the context of the litigation between the parties.

As a result, Heather's application for summary judgment was granted, and there shall be judgment for Heather against Jeffrey in the amount of $709,375.05. Heather is also entitled to costs, which are awarded on a solicitor/client basis. If there is any disagreement in relation to costs, the parties have the option to file memoranda.

Orders