New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Spousal maintenance

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2023

JONES v THOMAS [2023] NZHC 2024

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2024
Court

High Court

Liability for interim maintenance under s82 was not plainly wrong and is upheld, but the Family Court erred in the process used to determine quantum by failing to allow for the respondent's reasonably anticipated earnings during the interim period and by permitting weekly finance payments for a vehicle; remedy is reduction of weekly interim maintenance from $1,345 to $760 (total $19,760) rather than quashing and remittal.
30 Apr 2021

STANLEY v OWENS [2021] NZHC 954

Citation

[2021] NZHC 954
Court

High Court

Judge's factual findings that respondent lacked disposable means—due to significant relationship debts he assumed, limited assets, modest income and reliance on borrowing—were not shown to be erroneous; it was therefore proper to dismiss the maintenance claim, and alternatively the applicant could have reasonably re-entered the workforce after dissolution so post-dissolution maintenance was not justified.
19 Dec 2019

BOOTH v BOOTH [2019] NZHC 3445

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3445
Court

High Court

The High Court has jurisdiction to transfer the Property (Relationships) Act proceeding to the Family Court because s38A(4) deems transferred proceedings to have been commenced in the High Court, bringing s94 of the District Court Act (and s16 Family Court Act and supporting rules and authorities) into play; having resolved the rectification proceeding, the remaining issues are properly for the Family Court and transfer is in the interests of justice, so the High Court ordered transfer.
30 Apr 2019

WILLIAMS v SCOTT [2019] NZHC 935

Citation

[2019] NZHC 935
Court

High Court

The October 10 2007 letter was too vague and conditional to be an offer capable of acceptance and, viewed at the time, refusal to accept it was not unreasonable; accordingly the Family Court's 60% uplift based on r 14.6(3)(b)(v) was not justified and increased costs could not be sustained on any other grounds; costs for relationship property and maintenance were properly considered overall; the trial judge's allowance of disbursements including the psychiatric fee was left undisturbed as within his discretion although the High Court considered that evidence and fee questionable.
27 Apr 2018

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 822

Citation

[2018] NZHC 822
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient public or private importance to justify a second appeal; most contested matters were factual or discretionary, the applicant failed to prove German law with required evidence, and many orders were justified by the applicant's obstructive conduct, so there was no realistic prospect of benefit from further appeal.
21 Mar 2018

JUDD v HODGKINSON [2018] NZHC 491

Citation

[2018] NZHC 491
Court

High Court

The debtor failed to discharge the onus to show it would be just and equitable to refuse adjudication. The timing and size of the gifts (one and two days after the Family Court hearing) support an inference of intent to frustrate potential judgment and leave assets beyond reach; the Official Assignee must be allowed to investigate possible s205 claims and the debtor did not rebut the presumption of insolvency. Public interest in preventing judgment‑proofing and enabling statutory investigation outweighed the debtor's contention that adjudication would be pointless; accordingly the Court adjud…
2 Feb 2018

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 47

Citation

[2018] NZFLR 206
Court

High Court

German law was not established by admissible expert evidence and New Zealand law governs; appellant failed to prove existence of express oral trusts over disputed assets (absence of documentation, inconsistent evidence, adverse inferences for non-disclosure); even if a trust had been proven, s 8(1)(ee) would not convert an uninterrupted beneficial ownership into a new acquisition; therefore funds in the JFC/ANZ account and other contested items are relationship property to be divided, maintenance continuation and costs orders were within judicial discretion, and s 13 did not apply because cir…
15 Nov 2017

FINDLAY v FINDLAY [2017] NZHC 2797

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2797
Court

High Court

Court found no divisible relationship property interest in the company/trust structures and rejected claims that the transfers were void for undervalue or that the appointor's exercise was reviewable; however equity required relief: a remedial constructive trust was imposed to reflect plaintiff's significant direct and indirect contributions to the family business and the 'springboard' effect from the relationship, quantified at $500,000, payable by the defendants, with time to arrange payment and enforcement options reserved.
31 Oct 2017

WOOD v ARTHUR [2017] NZHC 1725

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1725
Court

High Court

Because the appellant's Calderbank offer of $800,000 was unreasonably rejected and the respondent's conduct (including refiled submissions and failure to cooperate on a joint memorandum) increased the appellant's costs, the court awarded 2B scale costs with a 20% uplift under r14.6(3), resulting in costs of $20,337 plus disbursements of $1,820; Family Court costs were left to the Family Court to determine.
31 Oct 2017

CRAIG v KEITH [2017] NZHC 2664

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 899
Court

High Court

Appellant was entitled to costs on appeal because he succeeded; no adequate evidence of respondent's impecuniosity was provided so costs were not reduced or refused; overall appeal categorised 2B but preparation of the case on appeal (item 55) warranted 2C not 3C; only one case management conference attracts costs because the other conferences resulted from appellant's non-compliance with Family Court orders; valuation and printing disbursements claimed by appellant are recoverable in specified amounts; Family Court costs order is set aside and costs in the Family Court are remitted for deter…