Roberts v Henderson - [2016] NZHC 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-443-000018 [2016] NZHC 1363

BETWEEN
NADIA ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

ALAN DANIEL HENDERSON First Respondent

AND

OLDE HOUSE TRUSTEES LIMITED Second Respondent

Hearing: 30 May 2016

Appearances:

A R H Laurenson for Appellant
S E Gifford for Respondent

Judgment:

22 June 2016

Reissued:

27 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Note: The names of the parties in this judgment are fictitious to preserve the
parties’ anonymity.

[1] This appeal concerns the division of property at the end of the marriage of

Nadia Roberts and Alan Henderson.

[2] Over their 16 years together, the two had worked hard to acquire and build up a dairy farm. Some of the land they farmed was purchased by the couple’s family trust in 2008 from Mr Henderson’s parents’ family trust. The purchase price of
$1,800,000 was not paid at the time but was recorded as a debt owing to the parents’ family trust in a loan agreement. Immediately following that purchase, the trustees of the parents’ family trust gifted the debt to Mr Henderson. As the debt is
categorised as Mr Henderson’s separate property, the practical effect of the

ROBERTS v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 1363 [22 June 2016]

transaction is that Mr Henderson will leave the marriage $1,800,000 better off than

Ms Roberts.

[3] Ms Roberts appeals the Family Court’s determination that she had no entitlement to the $1,800,000, either through relief granted under s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“the Act”), or through a determination that some or all of the loan was relationship property under s 9A of the Act.

[4] The issues for me to determine are:

(a) did the Family Court err in its application of s 44 of the Act to deny

Ms Roberts’ relief under that section of the Act; or

(b) did the Family Court err in its application of s 9A of the Act to deny

Ms Roberts any entitlement to the loan as relationship property.

How did Mr Henderson’s entitlement to the loan arise?

[5] Ms Roberts and Mr Henderson commenced their relationship in 1997. They were subsequently married on 16 May 1998. At the time of their marriage they were given the opportunity to work on Mr Henderson’s parents’ farm as sharemilkers. That farm comprised 69.29 hectares owned by the Murray Henderson Family Trust (the “MHF Trust”), of which Mr and Mrs Henderson senior were trustees, and
42.67 hectares owned by Mr and Mrs Henderson senior, in their personal capacity.

[6] Ms Roberts used $66,000 which she had inherited from her father on his death towards purchasing a villa which was shifted onto the farm. She and Mr Henderson spent time and money on renovating and enlarging the villa over the years, as well as working on the farm. During this period their two children were born, and Ms Roberts’ time was divided between looking after the children and helping out on the farm as required.

[7] Ms Roberts and Mr Henderson then…

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 Roberts v Henderson

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Henderson [2016] NZHC 1363
Case: [2016] NZHC 1363
Decision Date: 22 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roberts v Henderson [2016] NZHC 1363 is an appeal by Nadia Roberts against the Family Court’s determination that she had no entitlement to the $1,800,000 debt owed by the Olde House Trust to Alan Henderson, as it was categorised as his separate property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The central issues were whether the Family Court erred in its application of s 44 of the Act to deny Ms Roberts’ relief under that section, or whether it erred in its application of s 9A of the Act to deny Ms Roberts any entitlement to the loan as relationship property. The High Court found that the Family Court did not err in applying s 44, as Ms Roberts could not demonstrate that she would have had a claim or right to the debt under the Act, and the disposition did not have the effect of defeating her rights under the Act. Similarly, the court found that the Family Court did not err in applying s 9A, as there was no evidence of an increase in the value of Mr Henderson’s separate property interest since he acquired the loan, and therefore s 9A(2) could not apply. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.

Orders