DYER v GARDINER [2021] NZCA 248

DYER v GARDINER [2021] NZCA 248 [15 June 2021]NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT1976 AND S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORTOF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OFTHE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA724/2018[2021] NZCA 248BETWEEN WAYNE DYERAppellantAND JULIA FRANCES GARDINERFirst RespondentJULIA FRANCES GARDINER ANDPETER JOHN CLARK AS TRUSTEES OFTHE KARAKA TRUSTSecond RespondentCourt: French, Miller and Collins JJCounsel: R J B Fowler QC and G M Letts for AppellantR A Newberry for First RespondentA S Butler and F M L Gush for Second RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)15 June 2021 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Application for leave to seek further directions declined.B The applicant is to pay the respondents costs for a standard application ona band A basis for the preparation of memorandum of opposition, and usualdisbursements.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Collins J)[1] On 2 September 2020, we issued our judgment in this appeal and granted leaveto the parties to seek further directions if required.1 On 30 November 2020, Mr Dyersought further directions concerning the quantity of his entitlement under thejudgment. We issued a further judgment on 10 March 2021.2[2] Mr Dyer now seeks leave of this Court,3 to apply for further directionsregarding the imposition of interest on his share of the current account from 1 June2012 to date, and the value of Ms Gardiner's assets for the purposes of compensationunder s 44C(2)(a) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.[3] Mr Dyer has not provided any reasons why leave should be granted. He doesnot explain why the matters now raised were not addressed in his 30 November 2020application, which sought directions relating to his entitlement to the current accountand his entitlement under s 44C(2)(a).[4] It is not appropriate for Mr Dyer to now seek these directions, given he alreadyhad the opportunity to make extensive submissions on the two issues he now wishesto address. Further, in circumstances where the costs of this litigation, having beenheard by three different courts, is already disproportionate to the value of the propertyin issue, we consider it is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to Mr Dyer toseek further directions. We decline leave to Mr Dyer to seek further directions.[5] The respondents seek costs for this application. We consider it is appropriateto award costs to the respondents for a standard application on a band A basis for thepreparation of memorandum of opposition (0.2 days),4 and usual disbursements.Solicitors:Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for ApplicantGreenwood Roche, Wellington for First RespondentFrances Gush Family Lawyer, Upper Hutt for Second Respondents1 Dyer v Gardiner [2020] NZCA 385, [2020] NZFLR 293 at [178].2 Dyer v Gardiner [2021] NZCA 58.3 We provided in our March 2021 judgment that no further applications for directions shall be madewithout first seeking the leave of this Court: at [25].4 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, sch 2, item 9.