BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 822

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 822

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient public or private importance to justify a second appeal; most contested matters were factual or discretionary, the applicant failed to prove German law with required...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 822
Parties
Appellant: Peter Burmester; First Respondent: Beverley Joy Burmester; Second Respondent: Anneliese Burmester; Second Respondent: Sarah Burmester
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Property (relationships) Act 1976 Relationship Property Dispute / High Court Application for Leave to Appeal (second Appeal) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relationship Property, Spousal Maintenance, Leave to Appeal, Proof of Foreign Law, Express Trust, Costs and Counsel to Assist, Contempt, Partnership Property, Vesting Orders
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Relationship Property Spousal Maintenance Leave to Appeal Proof of Foreign Law +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Burmester

Appellant

Beverley Joy Burmester

First Respondent

Anneliese Burmester

Second Respondent

Sarah Burmester

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Property (relationships) Act 1976 Relationship Property Dispute / High Court Application for Leave to Appeal (second Appeal) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for a second appeal under s60 Senior Courts Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether German law could be applied in absence of expert proof of foreign law
  3. 3 Whether funds in joint ANZ account were relationship property or held on express oral trust

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient public or private importance to justify a second appeal; most contested matters were factual or discretionary, the applicant failed to prove German law with required evidence, and many orders were justified by the applicant's obstructive conduct, so there was no realistic prospect of benefit from further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused