Wootton v Wootton - [2020] NZSC 117

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 86/2020
[2020] NZSC 117

BETWEEN	MARGARET ANN WOOTTON Applicant
AND	PHILLIP GARY WOOTTON Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person E J Collins for Respondent
Judgment:	29 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for a stay pending determination of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 478) is dismissed.

BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a stay of proceedings pending the determination of her application for leave to appeal to this Court.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court on certain interlocutory applications made by her.[1] She applied to the Court of Appeal under r 12(3)(a) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 for an order staying the High Court proceedings between the applicant and the respondent (her former husband) pending the determination of her application for leave to appeal.
[1]Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZHC 2584 (Edwards J). The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was made under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, as Edwards J had refused to grant leave under s 56(3).
In a judgment issued on 5 October 2020, Brown J declined her application.[2]
[2]Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 474.
The applicant has applied to this Court for leave to appeal against the decision of Brown J. She seeks a stay of proceedings pending determination of her application for leave. The application for a stay is made pursuant to r 30 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004.
The background is set out in Brown J’s reasons judgment as follows:[3]
[3]Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 478.
[3] Mr E J Collins is counsel for the respondent, the applicant’s former husband, in the caveat proceeding. Ms Wootton’s application for an order prohibiting Mr Collins from continuing to act for the respondent in the caveat proceeding was declined by Associate Judge Johnston on 25 September 2020.
[4] The applicant then filed an urgent without notice interlocutory application in the caveat proceeding seeking the following orders:
(a)applying for the transfer of the proceeding to a High Court Judge;
(b)adjourning the 5 October 2020 hearing date pending the New Zealand Law Society’s (NZLS) decisions of the joint complaints before it regarding Mr Eugene Collins and Mr Lloyd Collins;
(c)restraining Mr Eugene Collins pending the outcome of the NZLS and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) complaints process;
(d) allocating a further case management conference for rescheduling a hearing date for the caveat application;
(e)varying the order for the proceeds of sale of one of the properties so that the monies currently held in the trust account may be held by the Court; and
(f)seeking leave to appeal to [the Court of Appeal] in the event that…

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 Wootton v Wootton

Details

AGLC: Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZSC 117
Case: [2020] NZSC 117
Decision Date: 29 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether to stay the proceedings in the case of Wootton v Wootton pending the determination of the applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought a stay of the High Court proceedings between herself and her former husband, the respondent, pending the determination of her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court on certain interlocutory applications made by her. The applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was made under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, as Edwards J had refused to grant leave under s 56(3). The Court of Appeal declined the application for a stay made by the applicant. The applicant has now applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The applicant seeks a stay of proceedings pending determination of her application for leave. The application for a stay is made pursuant to r 30 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004.

The court was required to decide whether the application for a stay should be granted. The court considered the threshold for the making of an order restraining counsel from acting, the high threshold for the making of an order staying proceedings, and whether the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court was against an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal. The court assessed the likelihood of the criteria being met as low. The court also considered the practical effect of granting the stay sought by the applicant, which would be that the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing a stay would be reversed.

The court dismissed the application for a stay. The court saw no basis to question the essential reasoning founding the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse a stay. The court was not satisfied that the applicant had made the case for a stay to be granted by the Supreme Court. The court also considered that the grant of a stay would have the effect of granting a de facto adjournment of the applicant's application for an order to sustain the caveats which she had registered. That was neither in the interests of the respondent nor the public interest. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders