26 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the contested issues were primarily factual matters of weight concerning the extent of displacement of the Scott working assumption, did not raise a novel question of law capable of serious argument or sufficient public importance to justify further appeal, and the High Court had not erred in law in its application of Scott.
29 Mar 2022
Although the First Respondent was the overall successful party and would normally receive costs, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the award by 35 percent to reflect mixed outcomes: the First Respondent's failure on the vesting claim, significant partial successes by the Applicant affecting quantum, the timing and terms of Calderbank offers, and increased costs incurred meeting some ultimately unsuccessful arguments; accordingly scale costs and disbursements were awarded to the First Respondent reduced by 35%.
21 Dec 2021
The High Court applied the principle that income and value accretion of relationship property entities (HML and its subsidiaries) are neutral for s15 purposes and therefore assessed economic disparity by reference to Mr Blake's personal earning capacity excluding income attributable to relationship property, using a key person discount; it quantified the s15 award on an adjusted post-tax annual income of $400,000 and set interest regimes accordingly, while granting leave on specific appeal questions.
1 Oct 2021
Income-generating capacity reflected in capitalised share values is neutral between parties for s15, but where a key person discount has been applied that reduces share value, the personal earning capacity (personal goodwill) excluded by that discount is not shared and may be taken into account in an economic disparity assessment; on the facts the Court set aside the Family Court s15 order and ordered a compensatory sum to be quantified on the basis of an adjusted post-tax annual income figure of NZD 400,000 for Mr Blake (reflecting realistic short/medium term earnings and health constraints)…
12 Jul 2021
Rule 132 permits extension of time to file an application for rehearing and the Family Court judge erred in dismissing the rehearing application as out of time without first considering extension under r132; accordingly the rehearing dismissal is set aside and remitted to the Family Court for determination; leave to appeal the substantive Family Court judgment is granted out of time on conditions (diligent prosecution, filing notice of appeal within 7 days, and entitlement to cross-appeal).
21 Dec 2020
The 2010 amendment to the family trust was a nuptial settlement for s 182 purposes, but s 182 relief was properly declined because the trust's assets and primary objects predated the relationship and were directed to settlor's children and the applicant made no material contributions to those assets; the s 9A claim failed because any attributable increase in value of the retained EBTL share was marginal (de minimis); HFT validly exercised its pre-emptive purchase right in November 2015 and is entitled to specific performance to complete the purchase at the November 2015 price of $337,000, bec…
14 May 2020
The Court held the working assumption that the division of functions caused economic disparity applied but was partially displaced by independent factors (career established pre‑marriage, appellant's pre‑marriage choices and post‑separation conduct). There was jurisdiction under s15 but, exercising its discretion and having regard to the immediate pension buy‑out obligation and other factors which absorb the disparity, the Court declined to award lump sum compensation; appeal dismissed.
11 Dec 2017
The Supreme Court restored the Family Court vesting order and Family Court valuation of the law practice (appellant's share $225,000), held the High Court and Court of Appeal were wrong to order sale based on passive post-hearing gains without a valuation-date adjustment, concluded the capitalisation of super-profits methodology with an appropriate multiple was valid in the circumstances, and adjusted the s 15 award to $520,000 (appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed); costs awarded to appellant $25,000.
28 Mar 2014
Application for costs against the legally aided respondent was dismissed because the conduct and procedural breaches alleged were not sufficiently serious or exceptional under s45, and post-trial refusal to settle was reasonable given the respondent's legal entitlement under the Family Court judgment until overturned on appeal.
11 Dec 2006
Interest is not payable from the Family Court judgment date because payment under the High Court judgment is not due until 31 January 2007; further, the court would not award interest from an earlier date as JES was effectively compensated by spousal maintenance; costs are awarded to JBC on a 2B basis subject to adjustments (including disallowing the filing fee on the unsuccessful cross-appeal) and JBC is entitled to one-third of the adjusted costs figure.