Scott v Williams - [2019] NZSC 80

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 45/2019
[2019] NZSC 80

BETWEEN	SCOTT Applicant
AND	WILLIAMS Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S L Robertson QC for Respondent
Judgment:	25 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for extensions of time for applying for leave to appeal ([2018] NZHC 1979 and [2019] NZHC 935) are dismissed.
BCosts of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

Ms Scott and Mr Williams[1] have been involved in a dispute about the division of their relationship property. Proceedings were first filed in April 2009. In 2014, Judge McHardy in the Family Court determined that Mr Williams should pay Ms Scott $850,000 under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA).[2] The family home and associated section (the Remuera properties) were vested in Ms Scott.[3]
[1]These are not their real names: see Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185, [2018] 1 NZLR 507 [(Scott v Williams (SC)] at [266].
[2]Williams v Scott [2014] NZFC 7616 at [366]. The judgment dealt with a number of other matters, including spousal maintenance. It was recalled (and reissued with the same citation) to correct a number of errors but the s 15 award remained the same, as did the vesting order.
[3]At [480].
Faire J largely allowed Mr Williams’ appeal: the vesting order was overturned and an order made that the Remuera properties be sold at auction.[4] Faire J reduced the s 15 award to $280,000.[5]
[4]Williams v Scott [2014] NZHC 2547, [2015] NZFLR 355 at [192]–[195].
[5]At [169].
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Faire J’s decision, except for increasing the quantum of compensation payable under s 15 of the PRA to $470,000.[6]
[6]Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356, [2016] NZFLR 499 at [94].
On appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision, this Court restored the vesting order made by Judge McHardy.[7] The amount of the s 15 award in favour of Ms Scott was increased to $520,000.[8] Ms Scott was ordered to pay Mr Williams costs of $25,000.

Application for leave to appeal

[7]Scott v Williams (SC), above n 1, at [268].

[8]At [271].

Ms Scott applies for leave to appeal against:
(a)A decision of Lang J on 6 August 2018[9] relating to costs on Faire J’s decision.[10] Costs had been reserved in the High Court and were to be determined pending the appeal.
(b)A decision of Hinton J of 30 April 2019[11] on Mr Williams’ appeal against the costs judgment of Judge McHardy in the Family Court.[12]
[9]Williams v Scott [2018] NZHC 1979, [2018] NZFLR 570.
[10]Above n 4.
[11]Williams v Scott [2019] NZHC 935.
[12][Williams v Scott] [2014] NZFC 4347. Judge McHardy made two further associated costs judgments: [Williams v Scott] [2014] NZFC 8012; and [Williams v Scott] [2015] NZFC 2754.
Ms Scott applies for an extension of time 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.

Continue reading Scott v Williams

Details

AGLC: Scott v Williams [2019] NZSC 80
Case: [2019] NZSC 80
Decision Date: 25 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applications for extensions of time for applying for leave to appeal made by Ms Scott against two High Court decisions, which were brought in the context of a long-standing dispute between Ms Scott and Mr Williams over the division of their relationship property. The Court awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The initial proceedings were filed in April 2009. A number of appeals, including to the Supreme Court, followed a decision by Judge McHardy in 2014 that Mr Williams should pay Ms Scott $850,000 and that the family home and associated section be vested in Ms Scott. In 2019, Ms Scott applied for leave to appeal against two High Court decisions relating to costs on the Family Court decision. The applications were well out of time. Ms Scott also submitted that there were exceptional circumstances to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Mr Williams opposed the applications on the basis that none of the reasons put forward by Ms Scott constituted the type of exceptional circumstances that would justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the applications for extensions of time for applying for leave to appeal. The Court found that none of the reasons put forward by Ms Scott constituted the type of exceptional circumstances that would justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the length of time the proceedings had taken to date was unfortunate but provided no reason not to follow the normal appeal path. The Court also found that there was no urgency in the proposed appeals. The Court held that the fact that Ms Scott's substantive appeal to the Court was the first time the Court had considered s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 did not constitute an exceptional circumstance. The Court held that many appeals to the Court involved issues not considered before by the Court, given the criteria for granting leave. The Court held that the reasons set out in the applications related to a decision of the Court of Appeal where there had been no application for leave to appeal, a complaint about the substantive outcome, and a systematic complaint about the costs regime. The Court held that it was not appropriate to comment on any of these matters at that stage. The Court held that these matters could not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Court dismissed the applications for extensions of time for applying for leave to appeal. The Court awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

Orders