MRS J v MR J [2019] NZHC 1674

MRS J v MR J [2019] NZHC 1674 [17 July 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-001429[2019] NZHC 1674UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976BETWEEN MRS JApplicantAND MR JRespondentHearing: 17 July 2019Counsel: TH Brown and HZL Krebs for ApplicantJudgment: 17 July 2019JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JThis judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 4.45 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:K3 Legal, Auckland.[1] Judge T H Druce transferred this case to the High Court today due to itscomplexity. Whether it remains here is for another day.[2] Mr and Mrs J are husband and wife—but separated. Mrs J seeks without noticerelief under s 43 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. More particularly, Mrs Jseeks orders restraining relationship property: gold bars worth millions of dollars andfunds in bank accounts. Some of the property is here; some overseas.[3] I heard from Mrs J's lawyers (in person) this afternoon.[4] Section 7 of the Property (Relationships) Act applies to movable property inNew Zealand and elsewhere, provided one of the spouses or partners lives inNew Zealand (when the application is made). Mrs J lives in Auckland.[5] Section 43 of the Act provides:Dispositions may be restrained(1) Where it appears to the High Court or the District Court or the FamilyCourt that any disposition of property is about to be made, whether forvalue or not, by or on behalf of or by direction of or in the interests ofany person in order to defeat the claim or rights of any other person (partyB) under this Act, the Court may, on such notice being given as theCourt may direct, by order restrain the making of the disposition or mayorder any proceeds of the disposition to be paid into Court to be dealtwith as the Court directs.[6] Mrs J has sworn two affidavits; one dated 2 July 2019, a second dated 11 July2019. Recitation of detail is undesirable given the without notice nature of theapplication, and infancy of the case. The affidavits satisfy me the statutory criteria aremet as a matter of inference. This because Mrs J's evidence can establish:(a) All of Mr J's property is relationship property.(b) Mr J has, for many years, placed relationship property into trusts or hisown name.(c) Mr J has been less than candid with Mrs J about relationship property,and other matters central to their relationship, including contact withtheir children.(d) Mr J unilaterally changed the locks to a home or apartment, it beingrelationship property.(e) Mr J has a false Belize passport.(f) Mr J (and Mrs J) have lived in many different places.(g) Mr J is seemingly anxious to maintain limited contact details, and livesin a gated compound in the United States of America.(h) Gold bars can be moved. So too funds.[7] I make the restraining orders for these reasons, and because I am satisfied Mr Jwill not be prejudiced.1 The orders "freeze" the property but do not do more; they saynothing about Mr J's substantive rights or obligations. Moreover, Mr J may apply torescind the orders if he considers they ought not have been made, circumstances havechanged, or both. I repeat the obvious: I have not heard from Mr J. He may have acomplete answer.[8] Mrs J also seeks without notice discovery orders. I decline to make these.Jurisdiction remains in doubt. And, I would not have made the orders anyway. I amnot persuaded they are necessary to preserve Mrs J's position on a without notice basis.[9] Mrs J seeks an order for substituted service given Mr J lives in the UnitedStates (in, as observed, a gated compound). I make this order. It is desirable Mr J ispromptly told of the orders and served with this judgment.[10] I have anonymised the parties out of an abundance of caution. Whether thisshould continue is also for another day.1 I make separate restraining orders: one in relation to the gold bars; a second in relation to the fundsin bank accounts. I do so because Mrs J said this would assist with service on interested parties.[11] I place the case before the Duty Judge on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 10 am...Downs J