Woolridge v Kumari - [2021] NZHC 1975

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2020-488-000082

[2021] NZHC 1975

BETWEEN
TERENCE WOOLDRIDGE

Appellant

AND

KANCHANA KUMARI

Respondent

Hearing: 13 April 2021

Appearances:

A O’Connor for the Appellant

G Thompson for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 August 2021 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TERENCE WOOLDRIDGE v KANCHANA KUMARI [2021] NZHC 1975 [2 August 2021]

[1] Mr Wooldridge and Ms Kumari met in or around December 2010. They married on 26 March 2012, around 15 months after meeting one another. Mr Wooldridge is now aged 76 and was born in New Zealand. Ms Kumari is aged 46 and is of Fijian Indian heritage. Mr Wooldridge thought he had found the companionship, intimacy and love he was seeking. Ms Kumari in turn thought she had found the supportive partner and financial security she sought.

[2] Sadly, that was not to be. They remained in the relationship until 12 August 2015. Mr Wooldridge stayed in the family home after the relationship broke down. Well after the separation, Ms Kumari applied to the Family Court for division of the relationship property including her share of the family home. Judge Adams determined that the general approach under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“the Act”) applied whereby relationship property is divided equally between the parties. He made orders requiring Mr Wooldridge to pay Ms Kumari the sum of
$261,327.

[3] Mr Wooldridge now appeals that judgment. He argues that equal sharing under the Act is displaced and the relationship property should be divided in accordance with the contribution of each partner to the marriage because:1

(a)the relationship was one of short duration within the definition of the Act;

(b)alternatively, there are extraordinary circumstances that make equal sharing repugnant to justice.2

[4] Mr Wooldridge also filed interlocutory applications for interim stay of the Family Court decision, to admit fresh evidence and for non-party discovery. By minute dated 29 March 2021, Brewer J directed that these applications be heard at the commencement of the appeal hearing on the basis that they might be dealt with in a

1 Mr Wooldridge relies on s 14(2) of the Act which displaces the principle of equal sharing of the home and family chattels in a marriage of short duration if the family home was owned wholly or substantially by one spouse at the date on which the marriage began and s 14(4) which displaces equal sharing of other relationship property in these circumstances where the contribution of one party to the marriage has been clearly greater than the other.
2 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 13.

way that preserves the hearing of the…

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 Woolridge v Kumari

Details

AGLC: Woolridge v Kumari [2021] NZHC 1975
Case: [2021] NZHC 1975
Decision Date: 2 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wooldridge v Kumari is an appeal by Mr Wooldridge against a decision of the Family Court to divide the relationship property between him and Ms Kumari. Mr Wooldridge argued that the marriage was one of short duration and alternatively, that there were extraordinary circumstances that made equal sharing repugnant to justice. The appeal was heard together with interlocutory applications for non-party discovery, to adduce further evidence and for an interim stay. The interlocutory applications were refused and the appeal was allowed. The marriage was not one of short duration and although there were extraordinary circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. An appropriate division of the relationship property was ordered.

The court noted that the Judge in the Family Court had heard evidence and seen witnesses. The court assessed the Family Court's decision on its own merits. The court found that the marriage lasted longer than three years and the periods of absence did not interrupt the "fabric" of the marriage. The court also found that although the marriage was short, the circumstances were extraordinary. The court found that equal sharing of the relationship property was repugnant to justice because of Mr Wooldridge's significant capital contribution, advanced age and the brevity of the relationship. The court ordered that Mr Wooldridge was entitled to 65 per cent of the value of the relationship property and Ms Kumari was entitled to 35 per cent of its value.

Orders