Scott v Williams - [2018] NZSC 37

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

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 95/2016

[2018] NZSC 37

BETWEEN
SCOTT

Appellant

AND

WILLIAMS

Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ

Counsel:

D J Goddard QC and S H Ambler for Appellant S L Robertson QC for Respondent

Judgment:

23 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appellant’s claim for interest is dismissed.

BThe respondent’s claim for interest is upheld. We order the appellant to pay interest of five per cent per annum to the respondent:

(i)on $290,751.34 from 20 February 2014 to the date of payment; and
(ii)on $51,591.13 from 6 June 2014 to the date of payment.

CWe make no award of costs in respect of the present application.

SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2018] NZSC 37 [23 April 2018]

REASONS

(Given by O’Regan J)

[1] In its substantive judgment in this case, the Court gave leave to the parties to file submissions on interest in the event that they were unable to agree on the amount of interest (if any) payable by one party to the other.1

[2] The parties have not been able to agree. In fact, each makes a claim for interest against the other. We have read and considered the written submissions made by the parties. For reasons to which we will come later, we have decided to deal with these claims on the basis of the written submissions filed.

Background

[3] The Court of Appeal made an order under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) that the respondent, Mr Williams, pay the appellant, Ms Scott,
$470,000.2 This Court decided by majority that that order should be quashed and
replaced by an order that the respondent pay the appellant $520,000.3

[4] The payment required to be made by the respondent as a result of this Court’s judgment under s 15 of the PRA is, however, substantially lower than the amount of the s 15 order made by the Family Court Judge.4 He ordered the respondent to pay the appellant $850,000. This Court reinstated the Family Court’s order vesting the Remuera properties of the parties in the appellant and also reinstated the Family Court’s valuation of the respondent’s law practice. This meant that the only difference between the outcome in the Family Court and the outcome in this Court was the amount to be paid under s 15 by the respondent. As the respondent made a payment to the appellant in June 2014 on the basis of the Family Court judgment (and no adjustments were made following the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments), the practical effect of this Court’s decision is that the appellant is now required to make payment to the respondent.

1 Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC…

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 [2018] NZSC 37
Case: [2018] NZSC 37
Decision Date: 23 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott v Williams is a case that was heard before the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The parties involved are Scott, the appellant, and Williams, the respondent. The case revolves around a property dispute that originated from a family court case. The legal issues at hand primarily concern the calculation of interest payable between the parties based on the court's earlier judgments.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the appellant should be required to pay interest on the sum ordered to be paid under section 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, from the date of separation until the date of payment. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the respondent was entitled to interest on the sums now owed by the appellant to him. The respondent claimed interest on two sums: one from the date of the family court judgment until the date of payment, and another on the amount the respondent had previously paid to the appellant, which the appellant is now required to repay.

In its reasoning, the court declined the appellant's request for interest on the sum ordered under section 15, ruling that such a claim was effectively a request to increase the amount of the section 15 order, which had already been finally determined. The court found that if any adjustment was needed due to the delay in payment, it should be made in the initial calculation of the section 15 amount rather than through interest. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that a failure to pay interest would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the Property (Relationships) Act. On the other hand, the court upheld the respondent's claim for interest on the sums now owed to him by the appellant, finding that the respondent should be compensated for the use of money that should have been available to him since 2014. The court ordered the appellant to pay interest at a rate of five per cent per annum on the specified sums from the respective dates to the date of payment.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's claim for interest was dismissed, while the respondent's claim for interest was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay interest to the respondent on two specified amounts from certain dates until the date of payment. No award of costs was made in respect of the present application.

Orders