Victoria Elizabeth Bethell and Maria Gael Bethell v Christine Anne Bethell

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 102/2014
[2014] NZSC 177

BETWEEN

VICTORIA ELIZABETH BETHELL as administrator of the estate of ROSS MCKAY BETHELL
First Applicant

MARIA GAEL BETHELL
Second Applicant

AND

CHRISTINE ANNE BETHELL
Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	S A Grant for the Applicants R J Thompson for the Respondent
Judgment:	3 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

John Bethell died in 1985. Under his will, his son Ross Bethell (now deceased) inherited a large block of land at Bethells Beach. This was subject to one of John’s daughters, Christine Bethell (Chrissie), having a lease during her life time of “ten (10) acres more or less together with the camp and shop buildings thereon (if any)” and having the right to have the 10 acres transferred to her if a subdivision could be achieved.
There were difficulties in implementing the will, which led to a deed of family arrangement in 1987. Under the deed, Ross agreed that Chrissie could call for “an allotment of up to 10 acres in the area known as the camping grounds[1] near the main road” as long as local authority consent to the subdivision was obtained during the joint lives of Ross and Chrissie.
[1]The land had never in fact been used as a camping ground.
Chrissie obtained resource consent for the subdivision of 10 acres. Ross refused to transfer the land to her, maintaining she was only entitled to the camping ground land itself, an area of approximately five acres.
The High Court upheld Chrissie’s claim to the 10 acres[2] and an appeal against that decision was dismissed in the Court of Appeal, except that Chrissie was held to be responsible for the costs of obtaining the subdivision’s resource consent.[3]
[2]Bethell v Bethell [2013] NZHC 3492 (Courtney J).
[3]Bethell v Bethell [2014] NZCA 442 (Randerson, Wild and White JJ) at [91]–[92].
The applicants apply for leave to appeal to this Court.
This matter involves the interpretation of a one-off deed. As a result, no issues of general or commercial importance arise. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Nothing that has been put forward by the applicants suggests that the courts below erred in the approach to the interpretation of the deed in the context of the particular circumstances of this case.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

Solicitors:
Turner Hopkins, Auckland for the Applicants
Patterson Hopkins, Auckland for the Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Victoria Elizabeth Bethell and Maria Gael Bethell, as administrators of the estate of Ross McKay Bethell, brought an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against Christine Anne Bethell. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a deed of family arrangement executed in 1987, which dealt with the inheritance of a large block of land at Bethells Beach from John Bethell's estate. Specifically, the issue was whether Christine was entitled to an allotment of up to 10 acres of land for a subdivision or only to the camping ground land itself, which was approximately five acres. The High Court and the Court of Appeal had both ruled in favour of Christine's entitlement to the 10 acres, a decision which the applicants sought to challenge.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicants had demonstrated that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the 1987 deed of family arrangement. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had misconstrued the terms of the deed and that there were grounds for appeal that had not been adequately addressed. The Court considered whether the matter involved issues of general or commercial importance, and whether there were any errors in the interpretation of the deed by the lower courts. The applicants contended that the courts below had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the deed and the surrounding circumstances.

The Supreme Court found that the matter did not involve any issues of general or commercial importance, and that the interpretation of the deed had been thoroughly examined by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court concluded that the applicants had not provided any compelling arguments to suggest that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Additionally, the applicants were ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

The Supreme Court's decision affirmed the rulings of the lower courts that Christine was entitled to the 10 acres as per the deed of family arrangement. The applicants' arguments did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a further appeal, and thus, the final orders of the Court remained unchanged.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established