CARTER V CARTER HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-002475
The appeal was not instituted merely to obstruct contact but to seek counselling for the child; accordingly no costs award is appropriate in the High Court and costs will lie where they fall, with costs issues reserved to be addressed in the Family Court when it deals with costs in the litigation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-270a1df8_b736_4aba_bc29_4120576c3317.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Charlotte Jane Carter; Respondent: Ross Erin Carter
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Appeal / Costs Reserved; Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- No costs awarded in the High Court; costs to lie where they fall; matter remitted to the Family Court; costs reserved to be addressed by the Family Court
- Legal Topics
- Counselling for Child, Contact Disputes, Costs Allocation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charlotte Jane Carter
Appellant
Ross Erin Carter
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Costs Reserved; Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether High Court should award costs
- 2 Whether the appeal was brought to obstruct or delay contact
- 3 Whether the appeal was properly brought to obtain counselling for the child
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was not instituted merely to obstruct contact but to seek counselling for the child; accordingly no costs award is appropriate in the High Court and costs will lie where they fall, with costs issues reserved to be addressed in the Family Court when it deals with costs in the litigation.
Court Disposition
No costs awarded in the High Court; costs to lie where they fall; matter remitted to the Family Court; costs reserved to be addressed by the Family Court
Orders
- File CIV 2008-409-002312 withdrawn
- File CIV 2008-409-002475 to be removed back to the Family Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CARTER V CARTER HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-002475 28 November 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV 2008-409-002475BETWEEN CHARLOTTE JANE CARTER Appellant AND ROSS ERIN CARTER Respondent Hearing: (On papers) Counsel: P J Shamy for Appellant S van Bohemen for Respondent Judgment: 28 November 2008COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J[1] On 5 November last the appeal file CIV 2008-409-002312 was withdrawn. I recorded a direction that file CIV 2008-409-002475 be removed back to the Family Court, but omitted to make that direction. It is directed to be so removed. [2] Costs were reserved. I have perused the submissions for costs. It appears the appeal was brought in order to obtain counselling. This was particularly that the counselling will directly involve the child who ran away from supervised contact. [3] I am satisfied that this appeal was not just to obstruct and delay Mr Carter's contact with his daughter. There was a basis for clarifying the position as to counselling in the light of the principles discussed by Duffy J in B v B HC AK CIV 2007-404-5016 26 August 2008.[4] It is not appropriate there be an award of costs. Costs will lie where they fall in respect of the High Court proceedings. At this stage, costs in that regard are reserved to be addressed in the long run by the Family Court if and when the Family Court decides questions of costs in this litigation.Solicitors: Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Applicant Buddle Findlay, Christchurch, for Respondent (Counsel: S van Bohemen) Ministry of Social Development (Counsel: F Boyd)