With her
47 year marriage at an end, Mrs Hutchison alleged the relationship property
claim by her husband’s long-term lover was a ploy by the two of them to cut her
out and preserve her husband’s business empire.
Mrs Hutchinson claimed the value of relationship property to be split
totalled $22 million; he said it was only $16 million.
The High Court in Christchurch was told Mrs
Hutchison filed her Family Court claim in 2008 for a split of relationship
property. She married at age 16. During nearly fifty years marriage her
husband built up a very successful business.
The name and nature of the business were supressed by the court. Evidence was given that Mr Hutchison had a
long-term clandestine affair with one of his employees: a Ms Greig. The affair started before she was employed by
his company and continued beyond Mr Hutchison’s marital separation some 27
years later. It was not his only
extra-marital affair. The court was told
Mrs Hutchison was unaware of these relationships at the time they occurred and
Mr Hutchison denied their existence when challenged.
Four years after Mrs Hutchison filed her relationship
property claim, Ms Greig also claimed in the Family Court for a share of the Hutchison
relationship property, claiming entitlement as a de facto spouse.
The Property (Relationships) Act allows for
more then one to claim for a share in the same relationship property. Two contemporaneous relationships can exist. Mrs
Hutchison alleged Ms Greig’s claim was a litigation tactic to force her hand
and to scare her into a quick settlement of her claim. She went to court arguing Ms Greig was never
in a de facto relationship with her husband.
Justice Gendall ruled Ms Greig was not a de
facto partner and was not entitled to share in the Hutchisons’ relationship
property. He laid bare details of the
relationship between Ms Greig and her boss.
The two did not present themselves as a couple to the world. Mr
Hutchison went to substantial and continuous efforts to keep the relationship
hidden from his family and family friends.
This involved some elaborate subterfuges. To hide the fact he and Ms Greig were going
on holiday to Perth he went to the lengths of buying wet-weather gear and announcing
he was participating in the Sydney-Hobart yacht race. His early departures from family holidays
were explained as the need to get back to work.
He moved the family to a home purchased next door to Ms Greig. When the two were seen together in public, it
would be viewed as part of their business relationship. There was no financial dependence or
interdependence between the two. They
operated independent bank accounts and did not acquire any assets jointly. There was no intermingling of their financial
affairs. They did not share expenses
when travelling overseas on what were ostensibly business trips.
The total amount awarded Mrs Hutchison as her
share of the relationship property was not disclosed.
Greig v.
Hutchison – High Court (10.06.15)
15.065