Bankrupted in 2017 after over a decade of relationship property litigation, Gary Owen Burgess failed in his High Court request for approval to continue legal action alleging malicious prosecution by his former spouse.
Mr Burgess alleged Ms Beaven cost him by improperly dragging out litigation. Success in the tort of malicious prosecution requires proof a litigant had no reasonable or probable cause to take legal action and did so maliciously.
The two separated in 2003 after twelve months marriage. Mr Burgess retained Medbury, a rural property in north Canterbury they had jointly intended to convert into a vineyard and homestay business. A cascade of legal cases followed; primarily arguments over whether unequal sharing of relationship property was warranted. Initial rulings were in Ms Beaven’s favour: 65/35. After grudgingly paying out, Mr Burgess won subsequent rounds adjusting the division ratio and reassessing the date for property valuation. These results saw Ms Beaven required to pay Mr Burgess. Meanwhile, Medbury was sold at a mortgagee sale.
After being bankrupted, Mr Burgess started legal action, suing Ms Beaven alleging she and her legal team deliberately delayed and slowed down relationship property litigation. He wanted damages. His earlier payout from Ms Beaven came too late to save Medbury, he claimed.
On bankruptcy, Insolvency Service takes control of all assets, including current and potential legal actions. Insolvency Service disclaimed his legal action against Ms Beaven, taking the view that pursuing the case was of no financial value. Mr Burgess sought High Court approval to assume control. Associate judge Lester said the court record showed no evidence of deliberate delay or even negligent delay by Ms Beaven or her legal advisers in any of their relationship property litigation. Mr Burgess did not explain why he himself was now pursuing a claim he could have brought some eight years ago, long before his bankruptcy, Judge Lester said.
Burgess v. Beaven – High Court (12.03.20)
20.056