Thompson v Public Trust - [2014] NZHC 1374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-1511 [2014] NZHC 1374

IN THE MATTER OF
an appeal under s 39 of the Property

(Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

ANNETTE COLLEEN THOMPSON Appellant

AND

PUBLIC TRUST as administrator of the Estate of SCOTT PHILIP HILLMAN First Respondent

CRYSTAL PAM COSTELLO Second Respondent

Hearing: 26 February and 14 May 2014

Appearances:

A G Gray for appellant

N J Davis for first respondent (abiding - leave to withdraw granted)

B J J Sheehan for second respondent

Judgment:

18 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns the estate of Scott Hillman

[2] The second respondent, Crystal Costello, was in a de facto relationship with Mr Hillman at the time of his unexpected death on 6 November 2008. Mr Hillman died intestate. On 24 May 2013 in the Family Court at Wellington Judge Moss determined that, in terms of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and the Administration Act 1969, at the time of Mr Hillman’s death his and Ms Costello’s de
facto relationship was not one of short duration.

THOMPSON v PUBLIC TRUST [2014] NZHC 1374 [18 June 2014]

[3] Annette Thompson, the appellant and Mr Hillman’s mother, now appeals that

decision.

Background

[4] Based on my assessment of matters, the following is an outline of the chronology of Ms Costello and Mr Hillman’s relationship:

19 February 2005: Ms Costello and Mr Hillman meet meaningfully for the first time. Ms Costello was 20, Mr Hillman
23. They quickly form a relationship.

February–April 2005: Ms Costello and Mr Hillman’s relationship
develops.

April 2005–June 2006: Ms Costello and Mr Hillman spend increasing amounts of time together, overnighting together four to five times a week at Mr Hillman’s flats at Middleton Road and then Colchester Crescent, and also at Ms Ward’s parents’ house.

29 July 2005: For Ms Costello’s 21st birthday, Mr Hillman gives her an engraved ring and silver bangle.

September 2005: Ms Costello and Mr Hillman are spending five to six nights together when Ms Costello’s parents move overseas in September 2005.

March/April 2006: Ms Costello visits her parents overseas.

10 June 2006: Shortly after her return, Ms Costello moves in with
Mr Hillman at his flat in Colchester Crescent.

April/June 2006: Ms Costello and Mr Hillman adopt a pet dog together.

March 2007  Ms Costello and Mr Hillman move (alone) into
Ms Costello’s    parents’    home.       Ms Costello’s
parents are still overseas.    Mrs Thompson lives with them there from January to March 2008.

6 November 2008: Mr Hillman dies whilst Ms Costello and Mr Hillman are still living together at Ms Costello’s parents’ house.

[5] Unbeknown to Ms Costello, Mr Hillman continued in a relationship with his former de facto partner, Ms Steeneken, from the time he met Ms Costello until April 2006.

[6] In February 2008 Mr Hillman and Ms Costello agreed to purchase an investment property together (as joint tenants) at Staysail Place, Whitby, Porirua for
$312,000. That purchase was funded by a $30,000 cash contribution provided by Mr…

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 Thompson v Public Trust

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Public Trust [2014] NZHC 1374
Case: [2014] NZHC 1374
Decision Date: 18 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Annette Thompson, the mother of Scott Hillman, appealed against the Family Court's decision that the relationship between her son and Crystal Costello was not of short duration. The Family Court had found that the relationship began in September 2005. The appeal was heard in the High Court, and the appeal was allowed. The court found that the relationship began on 10 June 2006, as agreed in the Contracting Out Agreement between the parties. The court found that the Contracting Out Agreement was not binding on the court's determination of the date of commencement of the relationship, but it was appropriate to give significant weight to the parties' nomination of the date. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the relationship began on 10 June 2006, when Scott and Crystal moved in together and bought a pet. The court also found that the relationship was of short duration, which meant that Crystal was not entitled to any of the proceeds from the sale of the jointly-owned property. Instead, the property passed to Scott's parents.

Orders