PATTERSON V DAVISON HC TAU CIV 2012-470-572

PATTERSON V DAVISON HC TAU CIV 2012-470-572

Appeal allowed because the Family Court judge erred in inferring an intention to defeat the respondent's rights from the evidence; a market-value sale by the company and the factual matrix amounted only to suspicion, not the requisite seriously arguable showing that the disposition was 'in order to defeat' the claimant's rights under s 43(1); accordingly the restraining order was unjustified and must be set aside.

Citation
openlaw-e9e8f1be_6d68_47de_9860_b37766a9d03a.pdf
Parties
Appellant: Ian Adrian Patterson; First Respondent: Claire Helen Davison; Second Respondents: Ian Adrian Patterson and Graham Maxwell Drury as Trustees of the Ian Patterson (No. 2) Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Interlocutory Appeal From Family Court Restraining Order (s 43 Application)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; restraining order set aside; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Mr Patterson and the Trust
Legal Topics
Restraining Order, Disposition of Property, Relationship Property, Dissipation of Assets, Interim Relief, Intent to Defeat, Statutory Interpretation of S 43
Family Law Property Law Trusts Law Company Law Civil Procedure Restraining Order Disposition of Property Relationship Property +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Adrian Patterson

Appellant

Claire Helen Davison

First Respondent

Ian Adrian Patterson and Graham Maxwell Drury as Trustees of the Ian Patterson (No. 2) Trust

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Interlocutory Appeal From Family Court Restraining Order (s 43 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 43(1) Property (Relationships) Act 1976 authorises restraint of a company asset where a spouse with control directs the disposition
  2. 2 Whether evidence supported an inference that the disposition was made in order to defeat the claimant's rights
  3. 3 Appropriate test for 'in order to defeat'—Coles v Coles vs Regal Castings

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because the Family Court judge erred in inferring an intention to defeat the respondent's rights from the evidence; a market-value sale by the company and the factual matrix amounted only to suspicion, not the requisite seriously arguable showing that the disposition was 'in order to defeat' the claimant's rights under s 43(1); accordingly the restraining order was unjustified and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; restraining order set aside; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Mr Patterson and the Trust

Orders

  • Restraining order dated 20 July 2012 set aside
  • Cross-appeal dismissed