Rennie v Baker - [2022] NZHC 721

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-2021-419-25

[2022] NZHC 721

IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

RENNIE

Applicant

AND

BAKER

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

M J Roots for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 April 2022

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Applications for leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 April 2022 at 4:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:
The Applicant
Mr M J Roots, Solicitor, Hamilton

RENNIE v BAKER [2022] NZHC 721 [8 April 2022]

[1] Ms Rennie seeks leave to appeal my judgment dated 30 November 2021.1 Leave to appeal is required under s 60 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 because my decision dismissed Ms Rennie’s appeal from a Family Court decision in relationship property proceedings she brought against Mr Baker.2

[2]Ms Rennie also applies for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal.

[3] Mr Baker opposes both applications for leave. Following a telephone conference, I directed the filing of submissions in advance of determination of Ms Rennie’s leave applications on the papers.3 Ms Rennie only filed signed applications and her sworn affidavit, plus amended submissions, on 28 February 2022, after the respondent’s submissions had been filed in accordance with the timetable directions.

Factual background

[4] The factual background is set out in my judgment and need not be repeated in full.

[5] The parties met around May 2012. Ms Rennie lived in Auckland and had weekend and other contact with her four school-aged children. Mr Baker lived in Raglan and worked in Hamilton. He had a three year old daughter. She and her mother lived in the same home as Mr Baker in a house-sharing and co-parenting arrangement. The parties met when they could, including at hotels. From an early stage, Mr Baker started to talk of a future together.

[6] In September 2012 Ms Rennie rented a home in Hillsborough in Auckland. Mr Baker sometimes stayed but the extent was disputed.

1      Rennie v Baker [2021] NZHC 3245. This judgment also anonymises the parties.
2      Rennie v Baker [2021] NZFC 588.
3      Minute dated 10 February 2022. As Ms Rennie’s applications were unsigned, Mr Baker initially questioned whether the appeal was filed in time by 19 January 2022 and, if not, whether the Court had power to extend time. However, s 60 does not appear to preclude extensions of time and Mr Baker did not pursue the late filing issue.

[7] In early 2013 Mr Baker put Ms Rennie down as next of kin / emergency contact and put ‘partner’ in his relationship…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rennie v Baker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 721
Decision Date: 8 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ms Rennie, the Applicant, sought leave to appeal against the Court's earlier judgment that dismissed her appeal from a Family Court decision in relationship property proceedings. She also sought leave to adduce further evidence on appeal. Mr Baker, the Respondent, opposed both applications for leave. The court had to decide whether Ms Rennie's appeal raised a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of the further appeal. The court also had to decide whether the proposed further evidence was fresh, credible, and cogent. After considering the evidence, the court found that the proposed further evidence was not fresh and not particularly cogent in relation to the issues in dispute. The court also found that the appeal did not raise a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument. Therefore, the applications for leave were dismissed.

The court dismissed Ms Rennie's applications for leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence. Costs are reserved in the event that legal aid does not apply.

Orders