The following provides a summary of some of the matters that we have been engaged on that have been heard (the vast majority are resolved before hearing)
McQueen v Penn (2018)
Providing assessment as to the relationship property portion of a pension scheme.
Court: Judge Otene
Applicant’s Counsel: S Jefferson KC
Respondent’s Counsel: V A Crawshaw KC
FAM-2012-019-000847
[2018] NZFC 3585
Applicant’s Counsel: S Jefferson KC
Respondent’s Counsel: V A Crawshaw KC
FAM-2012-019-000847
[2018] NZFC 3585
Thompson v Thompson (2013 – 2015)
Initially, assessment as to the value of a significant company owned by a trust associated with the parties, and then, following the actual sale of the company, the provision of expert evidence relating to the treatment of a restraint of trade provided by the husband and whether the sum allocated to the restraint fairly represented the value thereof, in the context of whether the restraint was relationship property or separate property.
Court: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O’Regan JJ (SC), Randerson, Stevens and Miller JJ (Court of Appeal), Andrews J (HC), Judge Rogers (FAM)
Applicant’s Counsel: A E Hinton KC, S H Ambler
Respondent’s Counsel: D A T Chambers KC
SC 50/2014
CA 701/2013 / CA711/2013
Applicant’s Counsel: A E Hinton KC, S H Ambler
Respondent’s Counsel: D A T Chambers KC
SC 50/2014
CA 701/2013 / CA711/2013
R v R (2015)
Providing evidence on behalf of the respondent in relation to the value of relationship property (which included shares in a small airline).
Court: Judge Fleming SJ
Applicant’s Counsel: R von Keisenberg
Respondent’s Counsel: R C Knight
FC Auckland FAM-2011-004-000391
Applicant’s Counsel: R von Keisenberg
Respondent’s Counsel: R C Knight
FC Auckland FAM-2011-004-000391
Graham-Mead v Mead (2014)
Providing evidence on behalf of the respondent relating to the cost and then current value of Fonterra shares owned by the respondent.
Court: Judge Smith DG
Applicant’s Counsel: Lady Deborah Chambers KC, S Gifford
Respondent’s Counsel: AE Hinton KC, P Shearer
HC New Plymouth FAM-2011-021-024
Applicant’s Counsel: Lady Deborah Chambers KC, S Gifford
Respondent’s Counsel: AE Hinton KC, P Shearer
HC New Plymouth FAM-2011-021-024
Karaitiana v Bushell (2012)
Providing evidence on behalf of the applicant regarding the valuation of various relationship property assets and financial arrangements between the parties.
Court: Judge Mather
Applicant’s Counsel: D Sim
Respondent’s Counsel: P Molloy
FC Auckland FAM-2001-090-001013
Applicant’s Counsel: D Sim
Respondent’s Counsel: P Molloy
FC Auckland FAM-2001-090-001013
KA v PF (2009)
Providing evidence on behalf of the applicant relating to their claim to an increase in the value of separate property and the value of property (a business) held by the applicant.
Court: Judge Rogers
Applicant’s counsel: S Jefferson
Respondent’s counsel: PF
FC Manukau FAM 2006-092-002394
Applicant’s counsel: S Jefferson
Respondent’s counsel: PF
FC Manukau FAM 2006-092-002394
X v X (2006 – 2009)
Providing evidence on behalf of the applicant (wife) in relation to her economic disparity claim pursuant to s.15 of the Property (Relationships) Act (which was a landmark case).
Court: O’Regan, Robertson and Ellen France JJ (Court of Appeal), Rodney Hansen J (HC), Judge Clarkson (FAM),
Applicant’s counsel: MJ Southwick KC
Respondent’s counsel: AE Hinton KC and VA Crawshaw
CA68/2009
HC Auckland CIV 2006-404-903
FAM-2003-004-002337
Applicant’s counsel: MJ Southwick KC
Respondent’s counsel: AE Hinton KC and VA Crawshaw
CA68/2009
HC Auckland CIV 2006-404-903
FAM-2003-004-002337
S v S (2006)
Providing evidence on behalf of the applicant relating to their economic disparity claim pursuant to s.15 of the Property (Relationships) Act.
Court: Judge Murfitt
Applicant’s counsel: G Harrison
Respondent’s counsel: PJ Egden
FC Christchurch FAM 2004-009-000941
Applicant’s counsel: G Harrison
Respondent’s counsel: PJ Egden
FC Christchurch FAM 2004-009-000941
Boys v Calderwood (2005)
Providing evidence on behalf of the applicant in a matter concerning promissory estoppel and constructive trusts following a long-term marriage.
Judge: Judge Ronald Young
Plaintiff’s counsel: AE Hinton KC and A Barker
Defendants’ counsel: P Fuscic, R Asher KC, K Muir
HC Auckland 2004-404-290
Plaintiff’s counsel: AE Hinton KC and A Barker
Defendants’ counsel: P Fuscic, R Asher KC, K Muir
HC Auckland 2004-404-290
As part of the relationship property work that we undertake, we are often instructed to make assessments under sections 9(a)(1) and (2) and 44 and 44C of the Relationship (Properties) Act in which we:
- Trace funds transferred to trusts;
- Assess the increase in value arising from the application of relationship property to the property in question; and
- Quantify the value of non-financial contributions made.
Our relationship property work also regularly includes:
- Valuing life interests;
- Nuptial settlements for the purposes of s182 of the Family Proceedings Act;
- Valuing annuities;
- Valuing employee share schemes insofar as a portion of the period where the award to be received under those schemes relates to a period prior to separation;
- Quantifying economic disparity assessments; and
- Tracing exercises, particularly where there are allegations of diversion of relationship funds from known relationship assets.
As part of our relationship property work, we regularly value businesses ranging from small professional practices (e.g. accountancy, law, medical, orthodontics etc) and businesses (e.g. retail outlets, insurance brokerages, travel agencies etc) through to large professional practices and international businesses or interests therein.
Let's Talk
If you would like to discuss any of these services with us, please contact us today.
Phone 09 300 5480Email admin@hco.co.nz
