Ronayne v Coombes - [2016] NZCA 393

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA393/2015
[2016] NZCA 393

BETWEEN	ROBERT GRAEME RONAYNE Appellant
AND	CAMERON ANNE COOMBES First Respondent
AND	CAMERON ANNE COOMBES, ROBERT GRAEME RONAYNE AND PETER RODNEY SPURDLE AS TRUSTEES OF THE RONAYNE COOMBES TRUST Second Respondent

Hearing:	22 June 2016
Court:	Randerson, Wild and Miller JJ
Counsel:	M S McKechnie and C J Forbes for Appellant E J Hudson and W D Bennetti for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment:	11 August 2016 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CThe appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis plus usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wild J)

Introduction

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment delivered by Faire J in the High Court at Hamilton on 29 May 2015 in which the Judge made orders under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act).[1] The case had been transferred to the High Court from the Family Court.
[1]X v Y [2015] NZHC 1166 [High Court judgment].
The fact that Faire J did not formally enter judgment until 24 June 2015 resulted in disagreement between counsel as to whether this appeal was filed in time. We are clear that it was not. Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules, the Judge gave his decision on 29 May 2015, and that is the operative date in terms of r 29(3)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. However, the respondent does not object to an extension of time for the appeal and we grant this pursuant to r 29A(2)(a).
When their marriage ended the parties agreed to equal sharing of their relationship property but they disagreed on several aspects of the implementation of equal sharing. The judgment of the High Court dealt with the disputed matters. Four questions require decision on these appeals:
(a)Occupation rent: Did the Judge err in holding the appellant husband was not entitled to occupation rent for the period of about two and a half years from the parties’ separation during which the respondent wife continued to occupy the family home owned by the family trust?
(b)Post-separation contributions: Was there error in the Judge’s decision not to make an allowance to the appellant for the financial contributions he made to the respondent post-separation? If yes, the respondent cross-appeals on the ground the Judge was wrong to refuse to award her interest on the super profits the appellant earned from his law firm.
(c)Economic disparity: The Judge made an allowance to the respondent under s 15 of the Act. Was he wrong to do this?
(d)Costs: Did Faire J err in awarding the respondent costs?
Before dealing with these questions we set out some general background. We will expand on factual matters where necessary in dealing with each question.

Background

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 Ronayne v Coombes

Details

AGLC: Ronayne v Coombes [2016] NZCA 393
Case: [2016] NZCA 393
Decision Date: 11 August 2016 at 3.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ronayne v Coombes, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal and cross-appeal from a decision made by the High Court. The original case involved a dispute between the parties, Robert Ronayne and Cameron Coombes, regarding the division of their relationship property following the end of their marriage. The High Court made several orders under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, which the appellant, Mr Ronayne, sought to appeal. The respondent, Ms Coombes, cross-appealed on one of the issues. The Court of Appeal had four questions to decide on these appeals.

First, the Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court judge had erred in holding that the appellant was not entitled to occupation rent for the period of about two and a half years from the parties’ separation during which the respondent continued to occupy the family home owned by the family trust. The Court of Appeal found no error in the High Court judge's dismissal of the appellant's claim for occupation rent and upheld the dismissal.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal examined whether the High Court judge had erred in not making an allowance to the appellant for the financial contributions he made to the respondent post-separation. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant had not established that the High Court judge had erred in exercising his discretion to decline the appellant's application for an award under s 18B. The Court of Appeal further found that the appellant's contributions to the joint account post-separation were roughly equivalent to a reasonable level of maintenance. The Court of Appeal thus dismissed the appeal on this issue and did not consider the respondent's cross-appeal.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal assessed whether the High Court judge had erred in making an economic disparity award under s 15 of the Act. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge's factual findings were sound and upheld the $65,000 award to the respondent under s 15.

Finally, the Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court judge had erred in his costs award. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's challenges to the High Court judge's costs order and dismissed the appeal on this issue as well.

As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis plus usual disbursements.

Orders