Wootton v Wootton - [2020] NZCA 478

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA566/2020
[2020] NZCA 478

BETWEEN	MARGARET ANN WOOTTON Applicant
AND	PHILLIP GARRY WOOTTON Respondent

Court:	Brown J
Counsel:	Applicant in person E J Collins for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	5 October 2020 at 10.10 am
Reasons:	7 October 2020 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

The application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 from the judgment [2020] NZHC 2584 is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Ms Wootton applies under r 12(3)(a) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) for an order staying proceedings in the High Court in CIV-2020-485-300 pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the Act) from a judgment of the High Court delivered on 1 October 2020.[1]
[1]Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZHC 2584.
The application for a stay was filed on the morning of 5 October 2020 seeking urgency for the reason that Ms Wootton’s application under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 to sustain certain caveats was set down for hearing in the High Court at Wellington that day. In the circumstances I delivered a results judgment with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

Background

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.
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 this Court in the event that the application was not granted.
Following a hearing at short notice (the Judge having declined to deal with the application on a without notice basis) Edwards J concluded there was no basis either to restrain Mr Collins from acting or to adjourn the 5 October 2020 hearing. The application was accordingly declined.
Ms Wootton’s application for leave to appeal to this Court under s 56(3) of the Act was also declined by Edwards J.

The application for a stay of proceedings

On the morning of 5 October 2020…

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] NZCA 478
Case: [2020] NZCA 478
Decision Date: 5 October 2020 at 10.10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wootton v Wootton before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand involved Margaret Ann Wootton as the applicant and Phillip Garry Wootton as the respondent. The dispute centered around the applicant's attempt to stay proceedings in the High Court pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal from a High Court judgment. The underlying issues in the case related to the applicant's application under the Land Transfer Act 2017 to sustain certain caveats and her allegations of misconduct against counsel for the respondent.

The court had to decide whether the applicant's application for a stay of proceedings should be granted under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. This involved weighing several factors, including the potential for the appeal to be rendered nugatory without a stay, the bona fides of the applicant, the effect on the successful party, the effect on third parties, the novelty and importance of the questions involved, the public interest in the proceeding, and the overall balance of convenience. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had met the high threshold for restraining counsel from acting and the prospects of success on appeal.

The court found that the applicant's application for a stay was not supported by the circumstances of the case. Both the Associate Judge and the High Court Judge had concluded that the circumstances fell well short of the threshold for restraining counsel from acting. The court also found that the prospects of the applicant obtaining leave to appeal and succeeding on appeal in obtaining an injunction were remote. The balance of convenience strongly favored the respondent, and 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. The court therefore declined the application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 from the judgment [2020] NZHC 2584 was declined. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was also declined.

Orders