Decided 19 December 2000 End date December 19, 2000 | Citation(s) [2001] 2 NZLR 167 | |
 | ||
Full case name Rodney David Haines v Lynne Valerie Carter Transcript(s) Court of Appeal judgment Judge(s) sitting McGrath, Doogue and Young JJ Ruling court Court of Appeal of New Zealand | ||
Haines v Carter [2001] 2 NZLR 167 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the defence of duress, that the party must raise this issue soon after the event, otherwise such a defence will fail due to affirmation.
Contents
Background
Haines and Carter were in a relationship, that ended in 1999. The parties agreed for the division of the relationship property be decided by arbitration.
After the arbitrators had made their decision, after Mr Haines had transferred some of the property to Ms Carter, Mr Haines subsequently claimed he was subject to duress at the time, as he claimed Ms Carter had threatened to lodge a complaint against him with the Inland Revenue Department. Mr Haines now disputed any liability for the balance remaining under the arbitration award.
In the High Court, the court refused to consider Haines claim of duress, on the basis that the initial transfer of property under the award, constituted affirmation.
Held
The Court of Appeal ruled that by completing part of the award, he had affirmed the award, and so could not legally claim duress.