6 Dec 2011
HODSON v HODSON HC NAP CIV-2011-441-618
- Citation
- openlaw-50a02267_839e_40a6_b403_7cd388a655f0.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The domestic purposes benefit (a means‑tested discretionary benefit) must be excluded from the applicant's means for interim s82 maintenance in line with Ropiha and the public policy of not shifting maintenance obligations to the state; the Family Court judge's inclusion of legal costs was an error of principle but immaterial to the outcome because the judge's assessed reasonable needs were lower than the applicant's pared‑back budget; the respondent's evasive evidence and available trust/company perquisites supported the conclusion he had the capacity to meet an interim award of $770 per wee…
- Interim maintenance under s82 family proceedings act 1980
- Reasonable needs assessment
- Domestic purposes benefit and means
- Inclusion of legal costs in maintenance calculations
- Assessment of respondent's capacity to pay
- Appellate review of discretion