Smith v Jones - [2014] NZHC 2674

PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES, OR OF ANY DETAIL THAT COULD ENABLE THEM TO BE IDENTIFIED, IS PROHIBITED.

THE COURT FILE IS NOT TO BE MADE AVAILBLE TO ANY PERSON SEEKING TO ACCESS THE SAME EXCEPT BY ORDER OF THE COURT FOLLOWING APPLICATION UNDER RULE 3.13.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2013-404-002050 [2014] NZHC 2674

BETWEEN
SMITH

Plaintiff

AND

JONES Defendant

Hearing: 6-9 October 2014

Appearances:

J D Turner and N C Baier for Plaintiff
J B Murray for Defendant

Judgment:

30 October 2014

(RESERVED) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J

SMITH v JONES [2014] NZHC 2674 [30 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant for the sum of $500,000, which he paid into the defendant’s bank account and placed on term deposit in mid- December 2012. The plaintiff contends that the payment was on certain terms, which have been breached, or on trust. The defendant contends that the payment was a gift to her.

[2] Pursuant to an order made earlier in this proceeding, publication is prohibited of the parties’ names, and of any fact which could lead to their identification, and the Court file is not to be made available for search unless application is made under r 3.13 of the High Court Rules and the permission of the Court is obtained.1 The plaintiff is referred to as Mr Smith, and the defendant as Ms Jones. These are not their real names.

Background

[3] Mr Smith is a director of a closely-held family company. He has been successful in business and can be described as being relatively wealthy. Ms Jones came to New Zealand with her son in 1999, having met her then partner in 1996, when he was working in her home country. That relationship ended in 2005. At that time, Ms Jones bought a house in Auckland. The house is owned by Ms Jones’ family trust, and is mortgage free.

[4] Mr Smith met Ms Jones at the massage parlour where she was working as a sex worker, in either late 2007 or early 2008, some months after his wife’s death. Mr Smith found Ms Jones attractive and “booked her” and paid for her services. Mr Smith continued to visit the massage parlour regularly, booking Ms Jones for the next visit as he left each time.

[5] Mr Smith’s evidence was that he felt sorry for Ms Jones, and wanted to help her to leave the massage parlour. To this end, he offered to pay her a regular sum each month if she left. Initially she refused, but later agreed to leave the parlour
upon his offering to pay her $5,000 a month. Mr Smith described the arrangement

1 Smith v Jones [2013] NZHC 2627.

with Ms Jones as being an “escort arrangement”. Ms Jones’ evidence was that from Mr Smith’s second (if not the first) visit to the massage parlour, she had no other clients and that her only concern was as to whether she…

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 Smith v Jones

Details

AGLC: Smith v Jones [2014] NZHC 2674
Case: [2014] NZHC 2674
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry, Smith sought judgment against Jones for the sum of $500,000 that Smith paid into Jones' bank account. Smith argued that the payment was on certain terms, which have been breached, or on trust. Jones contended that the payment was a gift to her. The central issue was whether the payment was a gift. The court rejected the notion that the payment was a gift, based on the lack of clearly expressed intention by Smith that he intended it to be a gift. The court held that there was an implicit agreement between Smith and Jones that the $500,000 was in her bank account to be put towards the purchase of a house, and that in the meantime she was to have the interest on the deposit. However, the payment was conditional on their relationship continuing. As the relationship had ended, Smith was entitled to recover the payment from Jones. Judgment was entered in favour of Smith for $500,000, together with actual interest accrued on the deposit as from 3 April 2013. Costs were reserved.

Orders