Romanes v Romanes - [2018] NZHC 2001

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2018-463-000038

[2018] NZHC 2001

IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

MICHAEL JOHN ROMANES

Appellant

AND

JOANNE CYNTHIA ROMANES

Respondent

Hearing: 31 July 2018

Appearances:

K Lellman for the Appellant

D Chambers QC and K Hayward for the Respondent M McKechnie for Mikro Holdings Limited

Judgment:

8 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2018 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland Counsel: D Chambers QC, Auckland
M McKechnie, Rotorua

ROMANES v ROMANES [2018] NZHC 2001 [8 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Mikro Holdings Limited (MHL) to be a party to the appeal filed by the appellant, Michael Romanes, against a decision of Judge Wills in the Family Court dated 29 March 2018 making interim distribution orders and other orders in favour of the respondent, Joanne Romanes.1

[2]The appeal is for hearing in this Court on 2-3 October 2018.

[3]Mrs Romanes opposes the application.

[4] Mr Romanes was represented at the hearing by counsel, Mrs Lellman, but did not seek to be heard on the application.

Background

[5] Mr and Mrs Romanes separated on 6 July 2016, having been married for 30 years.

[6] Before their marriage on 5 July 1986, a s 21 Relationship Property Agreement was signed.2 A second agreement was signed on 1 March 1993.

[7] The Relationship Property Agreement signed just prior to the marriage provided for the parties to retain identified property as their separate properties. Those items recorded as separate property of Mr Romanes included the following:

(a)shares in Concrete Structures (NZ) Limited (CSL); and

(b)shares in MHL.

There were other entities as well as other property recorded in the Relationship Property Agreement. However, it is not necessary to refer to them for the purposes of this judgment.

1 Romanes v Romanes [2017] NZFC 9928.
2 See Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 21.

The Companies

[8]Judge Wills referred to the companies as follows:3

[8] Over the years of the relationship, the business entities in the control of Mr Romanes developed into a very successful operation centred around pre-cast concrete structures. Mr Romanes is the sole shareholder in Mikro Holdings Limited (“MHL”) and was, until recently, the sole director of that company. MHL holds shares in other companies, including Concrete Structures (NZ) Limited (“CS(NZ)L”), Concrete Structures (Cook Islands) Limited (“CS(CookIs)L”). These companies were in existence at the time the parties married …

[9] MHL was incorporated on 1 May 1981. In October 2017, after the proceedings and the interlocutory application had been filed in the Family Court, two additional directors of MHL…

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 Romanes v Romanes

Details

AGLC: Romanes v Romanes [2018] NZHC 2001
Case: [2018] NZHC 2001
Decision Date: 8 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry, Mikro Holdings Limited (MHL) applied to be a party to the appeal filed by Michael Romanes against a decision of Judge Wills in the Family Court dated 29 March 2018, which made interim distribution orders and other orders in favour of Joanne Romanes. Mrs Romanes opposed MHL's application. The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 2-3 October 2018.

The court was required to decide whether MHL had jurisdiction to be heard on the appeal. The court concluded that s 37 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) was the relevant provision for determining whether MHL was entitled to be heard, rather than the High Court Rules. The court held that the order sought by MHL would only allow it to be heard on the issues affecting it in terms of the interim restraining order made by the Family Court Judge. The court further held that MHL was entitled to be heard on the appeal if it had made an application in the Family Court for a variation or discharge of the interim restraining order, and was then joined as a party to the proceedings.

The court made an order that MHL was to file and serve submissions on the appeal by 17 August 2018, the same date on which Mr Romanes was to file and serve his submissions. The court also encouraged MHL and Mrs Romanes to agree costs and to file a joint memorandum. If agreement could not be reached, MHL could file its memorandum within five working days of the date for the joint memorandum and Mrs Romanes within a further five working days. The question of costs in relation to Mr Romanes would not seem to arise as he did not take a position on this application.

Orders