Schumacher v Summergrove Estates Ltd

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA659/2013
[2014] NZCA 412

BETWEEN

PAULINE MARY SCHUMACHER
Appellant

AND

SUMMERGROVE ESTATES LIMITED
First Respondent

FORERUNNER SYSTEMS LIMITED
Second Respondent

DALE BENJAMIN SPEEDY AND JEANNE ELIZABETH MARY SPEEDY
Third Respondents

Hearing:	24 July 2014
Court:	Ellen France, Wild and Miller JJ
Counsel:	J H Hunter and J Hawker for Appellant DRI Gay and JLW Wass for Respondents
Judgment:	21 August 2014 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is dismissed. 

BThe appellant must pay the second and third respondents one set of costs on a band A basis as for a standard appeal together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.............................................................................................................. [1]
Narrative................................................................................................................... [5]
The relationship property claim........................................................................... [20]
The constructive trust claim................................................................................. [23]
The protest to jurisdiction..................................................................................... [25]
The decisions below................................................................................................ [26]
Forum non conveniens........................................................................................... [28]
Natural forum in this case..................................................................................... [31]

Governing law...................................................................................................... [32]
Personal and subject matter connections to forum.............................................. [41]
Where will any judgment be enforced.................................................................. [42]
Relative cost and convenience............................................................................. [44]
Strength of the plaintiff’s case.............................................................................. [47]

Are there special reasons not to stay this proceeding?....................................... [48]
Result....................................................................................................................... [52]

Introduction

1. The appellant, Pauline Schumacher, claims that a property called Summer Grove House is held on constructive trust for her, the result of her contributions to the property when she and James Speedy were married and lived there with their children.  To establish her claim she has brought proceedings in the High Court at Auckland.

2. Summer Grove is a Georgian country house situated at Mount Mellick, County Laois, in the Republic of Ireland.

3. Title to the property is held by the first respondent, Summergrove Estates Ltd, a Turks and Caicos Islands company whose sole shareholder is the second respondent, Forerunner Systems Ltd, a New Zealand company whose shareholders and directors are the third respondents, Jeanne and Dale Speedy, who are respectively the mother and brother of James.  Jeanne and Dale Speedy live here, as does Ms Schumacher.  James Speedy still lives at Summer Grove.

4. Before us is an appeal from a High Court decision allowing the respondents’ objections to jurisdiction and striking the claim out.[1]  The question is which jurisdiction, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland, is forum conveniens. 

Narrative

[1]Schumacher v Summergrove Estates Ltd [2013] NZHC 1387 [High Court review decision].

1. The following narrative is drawn for the most part from the affidavit evidence of Jeanne and Dale, supported by a substantial contemporaneous documentary record.  Ms Schumacher, whom we will call Pauline, has not responded. 

2. Pauline and James Speedy were married in New Zealand in 1980.  James was a solicitor.  The couple borrowed heavily to, among other purposes, build a home at Papakura and establish James’s legal practice.  They received considerable financial support from his family.  Some of their debts were guaranteed by James’s parents, Tristram, who is now deceased, and Jeanne.

3. By 1992 the couple were in serious financial trouble.  Jeanne deposes that they sold their furniture…