Rennie v Baker - [2021] NZHC 3245

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://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2021-419-25

[2021] NZHC 3245

IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

RENNIE

Appellant

AND

BAKER

Respondent

Hearing: 8 July 2021

Appearances:

S J Zindel for the Appellant M J Roots for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2021 at 5:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr S J Zindel, Solicitor, Nelson Mr M J Roots, Solicitor, Hamilton

RENNIE v BAKER [2021] NZHC 3245 [30 November 2021]

[1] Ms Rennie appeals from the decision of Judge D A Blair in the Family Court at Hamilton dated 22 January 2021,1 in relationship property proceedings she brought against Mr Baker. Ms Rennie claimed that the parties had a qualifying de facto relationship between 2012 and 2016 and that there are relationship property assets to be divided. Mr Baker acknowledged a relationship but said it was not a qualifying de facto relationship.

Factual background

[2]The parties met on an online dating website between April and June 2012.

[3] At that time, Ms Rennie was aged 45, lived in Auckland and had weekend and other contact with her four school-aged children. She was in the process of resolving relationship property issues with her ex-partner. She was on a sickness benefit.

[4] Mr Baker was aged 50, lived in Raglan and worked for an engineering consultancy 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.

[5] The parties began spending time together, before Ms Rennie went on holiday to Vietnam in June 2012. They had contact while she was away, and saw a lot of each other following her return. They met when they could, including staying at hotels and a house-sitting property, and had a holiday together in Northland in August 2012. During this period, Mr Baker was already starting to talk of a future together.

[6] In September 2012 Ms Rennie rented a home in Hillsborough in Auckland, which she said was where they could live together with their children once Mr Baker sold his house in January 2013.

[7] They arranged for Ms Rennie’s children to meet Mr Baker on 23 September 2012 at Waingaro hot pools. Ms Rennie had an accident there. In that context, she said she disclosed to WINZ that she was in a relationship with Mr Baker and that they

1 Rennie v Baker [2021] NZFC 588. The citation of the Family Court judgment has been anonymised as has this version of my judgment for publication purposes.

planned to…

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: [2021] NZHC 3245
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Rennie v Baker [2021] NZHC 3245 was heard by Gault J. Ms Rennie appealed against the Family Court's decision that the parties had two short duration de facto relationships and there was no child of the relationship or substantial contribution by Ms Rennie, and that failure to make an order for the division of relationship property would not result in serious injustice. The appeal also challenged the Family Court's finding that the property at [withheld] was not relationship property. The High Court dismissed the appeal. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court found that the parties were in two de facto relationships of short duration, there was no child of the relationship, Ms Rennie had not made a substantial contribution, and failure to make an order for the division of relationship property would not result in serious injustice. It also agreed with the Family Court's finding that the property at [withheld] was not relationship property.

Orders