Te Hei v Bradford - [2020] NZHC 1418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2018-412-90

[2020] NZHC 1418

UNDER the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN

REANA GAYE TE HEI
Plaintiff

AND

JONATHAN LEE BRADFORD

Defendant

CIV-2019-412-126

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JONATHAN LEE BRADFORD

Applicant

AND

REANA GAYE TE HEI

Respondent

Hearing: 11 June 2020

Appearances:

D J More for J L Bradford (Defendant/Applicant)

L A Andersen QC for R G Te Hei (Plaintiff/Respondent)

Judgment:

23 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 June 2020 at 11.30am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 23 June 2020

TE HEI v BRADFORD [2020] NZHC 1418 [23 June 2020]

[1] Jonathan Bradford (Jonathan) and Reana Te Hei (Reana) were in a short-term de facto relationship. Jonathan has issued proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA), seeking a division of their relationship property. Reana has issued proceedings under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA), seeking an order that the property they purchased together at 32 Arawa Street, Tainui Dunedin (the property), be sold.

[2] Jonathan’s proceedings originally in the Family Court were transferred by consent to this Court.

[3] As I recorded in a minute of 6 May 2020, counsel consider there is value in a judicial settlement conference to resolve property issues between the parties. However, there remains the issue as to which Act will apply to the division of the property.

[4] While there is no formal application to have the applicable Act determined, counsel in the interests of avoiding unnecessary costs have co-operated in an informal application aimed at resolving the issue.

[5] The issue arises because of s 14A of the PRA which applies to relationships of short duration (and it is common ground this de facto relationship was of short duration). Section 14A starts from the position that an order cannot be made under the PRA unless certain preconditions are met. Section 14A of the PRA provides:

14A De facto relationships of short duration

(1)This section applies if a de facto relationship is a relationship of short duration (as defined in section 2E).

(2)If this section applies, an order cannot be made under this Act for the division of relationship property unless—

(a)the court is satisfied—

(i)that there is a child of the de facto relationship; or

(ii)that the applicant has made a substantial contribution to the de facto relationship; and

(b)the court is satisfied that failure to make the order would result in serious injustice.

(3)If this section applies, and the court is satisfied that the grounds specified in subsection (2) for making an order on an application under this Act are made out, the share of each de facto partner in the relationship property is to be determined in accordance with the contribution of each de facto partner to the de facto relationship.

(4)Nothing in this section prevents a court from making a declaration or…

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 Te Hei v Bradford

Details

AGLC: Te Hei v Bradford [2020] NZHC 1418
Case: [2020] NZHC 1418
Decision Date: 23 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Te Hei v Bradford involved a dispute between Reana Te Hei and Jonathan Bradford over the division of their relationship property. Jonathan and Reana were in a short-term de facto relationship, and Jonathan issued proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA), seeking a division of their relationship property. Reana, on the other hand, issued proceedings under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA), seeking an order that the property they purchased together be sold. The primary legal issue was which Act would apply to the division of the property. The court had to decide whether the PRA or the PLA would be the applicable Act in determining the division of the property.

The court noted that section 14A of the PRA applied to de facto relationships of short duration, and both parties agreed that their relationship fell into that category. Section 14A provided that an order for the division of relationship property could not be made unless certain preconditions were met, including that there was a child of the de facto relationship or that the applicant made a substantial contribution to the relationship. The court had to consider whether failure to make an order under the PRA would result in serious injustice to Jonathan. The court concluded that the PRA proceedings should proceed as the jurisdiction the court exercised under the PLA was not apt to recognise Jonathan's financial contributions to the de facto relationship. The court found that leaving Jonathan without the ability to have all his contributions to the relationship taken into account in the division of their property would result in serious injustice.

The court ordered that the PLA proceedings be stayed pending resolution of the PRA proceedings. The court also scheduled a half-day judicial settlement conference to be held on 27 August 2020 to resolve the property issues between the parties.

Orders