Bridge v Blue - [2025] NZHC 2854

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,

PLEASE SEE https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/family-court/after-the-family- court/restrictions-on-publishing-information/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2025-441-002

[2025] NZHC 2854

UNDER the Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Napier

BETWEEN

MS BRIDGE

Appellant

AND

MR BLUE

Respondent

On the papers: 30 September 2025

Appearances:

P A Fairbrother and J Kim for Appellant

J D Cameron and L J Williams for Respondent L A MacLennan for Lawyer for the Child

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Costs) (anonymous version)

BRIDGE v BLUE [2025] NZHC 2854 [30 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Ms Bridge and Mr Blue were unable to agree on the school that their young child should attend.1 Ms Bridge unsuccessfully appealed against the Family Court’s decision that the child go a local public school favoured by Mr Blue.2 Ms Bridge, herself having trained as a teacher, considered that a private school in the area would suit the child better.

[2] In the substantive appeal, I concluded that the Family Court Judge had made no error in relation to the application of the burden of proof and had correctly applied the relevant principles in finding that it was in the child’s best interests to attend the local school. Nor was he in error in assessing the quality of education and opportunities offered by the respective schools. In addition, the Judge had taken into account the child’s views, albeit he ultimately decided against her wish to go to the private school. The recommendation of the lawyer for the child was that the child go to the public school.

[3] Mr Blue now applies for costs against Ms Bridge, on the basis there are “exceptional circumstances” justifying an award of costs against her, despite the fact she is legally aided. He seeks costs of $19,120. Ms Bridge opposes the application, noting that she is required to repay her grant of aid. She says that there are no exceptional circumstances arising from her conduct in relation to the proceedings which would allow costs to be awarded, given that she is legally aided.

Legal principles

[4] Section 45 of the Legal Services Act 2011 governs the award of costs against a legally aided person. Insofar as relevant, it reads:

45 Liability of aided person for costs

(1)If an aided person receives legal aid for civil proceedings, that person’s liability under an order for costs made against him or her with respect to the proceedings must not exceed an amount (if any) that is reasonable for the aided person to pay having regard to all the

1 The published judgment has been anonymised using fictional names for the parties and the child: Ms Bridge, Mr Blue and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bridge v Blue

Details

AGLC: Bridge v Blue [2025] NZHC 2854
Case: [2025] NZHC 2854
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Ms Bridge appealed against a Family Court decision that their child should attend a local public school, a decision favoured by Mr Blue. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which found that the Family Court Judge had correctly applied the relevant principles and that the appeal was not without merit. Mr Blue subsequently applied for costs against Ms Bridge, who is legally aided, arguing that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an award of costs against her. The court examined whether Ms Bridge’s conduct during the proceedings justified an award of costs, considering factors such as unnecessary costs, failure to comply with court orders, and abuse of court processes. The court found that Ms Bridge had not acted unreasonably and that the appeal was not hopeless or unmeritorious. Given that the appeal was not pursued unreasonably and considering the paramountcy of the child’s best interests, the court declined to award costs against Ms Bridge.

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of contribution to the costs of the lawyer for the child, concluding that it would be inappropriate for either party to contribute to those costs due to the reasonable positions taken by both parties in the proceedings. Given that Ms Bridge is legally aided, no order for a cost contribution could be made against her unless exceptional circumstances were established, which the court found were not present. Consequently, the application for costs is declined.

Orders