SLADE v SLADE [2016] NZHC 133

SLADE v SLADE [2016] NZHC 133

Freezing orders were set aside because the plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case: the proceeds were held by family trusts (not the parties personally), there was no evidence the trusts held the funds on behalf of Mrs Slade or that the trusts were being used to defeat creditors, and the main substantive claim under the Property (Relationships) Act falls outside the High Court's originating jurisdiction; consequently the proceeding was transferred to the District Court under s46(2).

Citation
[2016] NZHC 133
Parties
First Plaintiff: Kevin George Slade; Second Plaintiffs: Kevin George Slade, Maurice Barton, Betty Barton and Edjohnstone & Co Trustees Limited as trustees of the Amanda Slade Trust; First Defendant: Carolyn Patricia Slade; Second Defendants: Carolyn Patricia Slade and Raewyn Noni Durant as trustees of the Sciadopitys Haven Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Rescission / Oral Application to Rescind Without‑notice Freezing Orders (interim)
Outcome
Freezing orders set aside; proceeding transferred to the District Court; defendants awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Relationship Property, Trust Assets, Dissipation Risk, Jurisdictional Transfer, Costs
Civil Procedure Family Law Property Law Trusts Law Tax Law Freezing Orders Relationship Property Trust Assets +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin George Slade

First Plaintiff

Kevin George Slade, Maurice Barton, Betty Barton and Edjohnstone & Co Trustees Limited as trustees of the Amanda Slade Trust

Second Plaintiffs

Carolyn Patricia Slade

First Defendant

Carolyn Patricia Slade and Raewyn Noni Durant as trustees of the Sciadopitys Haven Trust

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order Rescission / Oral Application to Rescind Without‑notice Freezing Orders (interim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs established a good arguable case to support freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk assets would be dissipated
  3. 3 Whether freezing orders could properly extend to assets held by third party trusts

Ratio Decidendi

Freezing orders were set aside because the plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case: the proceeds were held by family trusts (not the parties personally), there was no evidence the trusts held the funds on behalf of Mrs Slade or that the trusts were being used to defeat creditors, and the main substantive claim under the Property (Relationships) Act falls outside the High Court's originating jurisdiction; consequently the proceeding was transferred to the District Court under s46(2).

Court Disposition

Freezing orders set aside; proceeding transferred to the District Court; defendants awarded costs.

Orders

  • Freezing orders made by Woolford J on 20 November 2015 are set aside
  • Order setting aside freezing orders is not to take effect until 28 February 2016 to enable plaintiffs to consider options in the District Court