NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 95/2016
[2017] NZSC 185

BETWEEN	SCOTT Appellant
AND	WILLIAMS Respondent

Hearing:	14 and 15 March 2017
Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	D J Goddard QC, S H Ambler and S L K Shaw for Appellant S L Robertson QC and J M McGuigan for Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
BThe cross-appeal is dismissed.
CThe vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
DThe valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
EAn order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
FCosts of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para
Glazebrook J	[1]
Arnold J	[276]
Elias CJ	[330]
O’Regan J	[359]
William Young J	[391]

GLAZEBROOK J

Table of Contents

Para
Introduction	[1]
Background	[3]
Vesting order	[17]
Evidence	[17]
Family Court decision	[21]
High Court decision	[27]
Court of Appeal decision	[32]
Parties’ submissions	[37]
Issues	[39]
Association with the properties	[41]
Post-hearing gains	[45]
Valuation issues	[53]
Failure to reconsider	[59]
Conduct	[60]
Summary and conclusion	[64]
Valuation of the legal practice	[67]
Methodology in this case	[67]
Evidence	[71]
Family Court decision	[83]
High Court decision	[85]
Court of Appeal decision	[89]
Ms Scott’s submissions	[90]
Mr Williams’ submissions	[93]
Issues	[95]
Appropriate valuation standard	[96]
Valuation methodologies	[105]
Capitalisation of super profits	[109]
Reliance on M v B	[116]
Factors taken into account	[120]
Retirement	[127]
Remission to the Family Court?	[132]
Summary and conclusion	[137]
Section 15	[141]
The legislation	[141]
Legislative history	[145]
Methods used to date	[157]
Issue	[159]
Expert evidence in this case	[160]
Family Court decision	[166]
High Court decision	[169]
Court of Appeal decision	[173]
Issues	[179]
A different methodology?	[182]
Ms Scott’s submissions	[182]
Mr Williams’ submissions	[188]
Wording of s 15	[191]
Other sections of the PRA	[198]
Support from legislative history?	[201]
General approach	[203]
Available methods to calculate disparity	[206]
Just compensation	[211]
Date compensation assessed	[216]
Comments on Mr Goddard’s calculations	[221]
Remission to the Family Court?	[224]
Was the Court of Appeal approach correct?	[227]
Ms Scott’s submissions	[228]
Mr Williams’ submissions	[236]
Diminution method	[240]
Enhancement method	[245]
Diminution method in this case	[247]
Enhancement method in this case	[251]
Factors taken into account by the Court of Appeal	[253]
Just compensation in this case	[256]
The cross-appeal	[260]
Mr Williams’ submissions

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 [2017] NZSC 185
Case: [2017] NZSC 185
Decision Date: 11 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott v Williams was a property dispute between former spouses, Scott and Williams. The issues were whether the Family Court's vesting order for the parties' residence in Remuera and adjoining section (the Remuera properties) should have been overturned by the High Court, whether the Court of Appeal's valuation of the parties' law practice was correct, and whether the amount awarded to Scott under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 was correct. The Supreme Court allowed Scott's appeal, dismissed Williams' cross-appeal, and restored the vesting order made by the Family Court. The Court also restored the Family Court's valuation of the parties' law practice and made an order in Scott's favour of $520,000 under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the parties' relative attachment to the properties and that the High Court and Court of Appeal had wrongly concluded that a sale of the properties was appropriate. The Court found that the Family Court's valuation of the parties' law practice was appropriate and that the Court of Appeal had wrongly reduced the value of the practice. The Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the parties' relative earning capacities and that the High Court had wrongly reduced the amount awarded to Scott under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Court made an order in Scott's favour of $520,000 under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and awarded Scott costs of $25,000.

Orders