New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Family court procedure

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2023

VICKERS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI–MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN & ORS [2023] NZHC 2695

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2695
Court

High Court

The strike out was correct because the appellant failed to adduce credible, particularised evidence of imminent risk or serious injury necessary to justify a without‑notice order; the Martin v Ryan factors were not satisfied; and the application duplicated an on‑notice proceeding already before the Family Court, constituting an abuse of process, therefore the without‑notice application was properly struck out and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Nov 2022

C v H [2022] NZHC 3145

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3145
Court

High Court

The Court has no jurisdiction to receive an appeal under s177 against a Family Court decision directing a without‑notice protection application to proceed on notice because that decision is procedural/interlocutory (not a final determination of a protection order) and the appropriate remedies are continuation on-notice in the Family Court or, in exceptional cases, judicial review; allowing High Court appeals in those circumstances would contradict the Act's scheme and purpose and the High Court Rules.
9 Mar 2021

ADAMS v WATCHER [2021] NZHC 432

Citation

[2021] NZHC 432
Court

High Court

The Family Court erred by awarding indemnity costs for the entirety of the proceedings without analysing lesser alternatives (scale or uplifted scale), without limiting an uplift to particular steps that justified it, and without examining whether the charged fees related solely to those steps; accordingly the indemnity costs order of $29,903.46 was set aside and replaced with a specific scale‑based award of $12,892.50 for the contested hearing period.
9 Jun 2014

V H v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZHC 1303

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1303
Court

High Court

Interim relief was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate clear procedural injustice in the Family Court judge's decision to allocate a limited two hour fixture; the judge's approach was within discretionary case-management powers and necessary to address urgent interim welfare issues, and granting interim relief would effectively grant final relief and improperly usurp the Family Court's process.
16 Apr 2008

RADISICH V TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-7578

Citation

openlaw-96d5aaae_ddcf_469e_ba53_9480b0732de6.pdf
Court

High Court

The Judge erred by materially relying on the respondent's actual solicitor and client costs and by awarding costs ($10,000) representing a 157% uplift above scale without exceptional circumstances; correct approach is to determine scale costs under r47/r47B and, if justified under r47C(3)(b), award an uplift ordinarily not exceeding 50%; applying that approach the appropriate substituted award is $6,412 plus disbursements.
25 Jun 2007

DE AND ORS V DEVLIN AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2007-419-844

Citation

openlaw-8bd34915_3d2d_4b34_8945_2d9f09dcad96.pdf
Court

High Court

The Family Court lawfully made an ex parte interim custody order under s78 of the CYPTF Act, that order provided authority under s104 for the Chief Executive to take custody of N, and therefore the detention was lawful; the habeas corpus application was dismissed and the file transferred to the Family Court for prompt review.

New Zealand Case Law

VICKERS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI–MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN & ORS [2023] NZHC 2695

C v H [2022] NZHC 3145

ADAMS v WATCHER [2021] NZHC 432

V H v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZHC 1303

RADISICH V TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-7578

DE AND ORS V DEVLIN AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2007-419-844