CAM v JMP - [2013] NZHC 592

PURSUANT TO SECTION 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE SEE WWWW.JUSTICE.GOVT.NZ/FAMILY/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-006050 [2013] NZHC 592

UNDER  Section 174 Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN  C A M

Appellant

AND  J M P

Respondent

Hearing:         6 March 2013

Appearances: D Hollings Chambers QC for Appellant JMP, Respondent, in person

Judgment:      26 March 2013

RESERVED JUDMENT OF ANDREWS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 March 2013 at 4:00 pm Pursuant to Rue 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Fortune Manning, Auckland Deborah Hollings Chambers QC Copy:
Respondent

C A M V J M P HC AK CIV-2012-404-002738 [26 March 2013]

Table of Contents
Paragraph

No.

Introduction [1]

Relevant factual background [3]

Relevant statutory provisions as to maintenance orders [10]

Approach on appeal [16]

Appeal issues [20]

Should the appellant’s maintenance obligation have ceased when M turned 3? [23]

Submissions [23]

Discussion [31]

Was the Judge wrong to hold that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance at $2,000 a week up to January 2013? [39]

The Family Court judgment [39]

Submissions [42]

Discussion [45]

A:       The respondent’s reasonable needs [45]

(i)       Introduction [45]

(i)       Reference to the respondent’s budget [46]

(iii)     Reference to the assessment in the interim maintenance judgment [47]

(iv)     The respondent’s evidence [50]

B:       The appellant’s reasonable needs and ability to pay maintenance [65]

Should the appellant have been ordered to pay the respondent

$3,504 for reimbursement of expenses?
[73]

Introduction [73]

Discussion [76]

Result [79]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, CAM, has appealed against the judgment of Judge DA Burns given in the Family Court at Auckland on 19 September 2012, in which the Judge made a final maintenance order in favour of the respondent, JMP, his former partner, together with orders as to payment of past maintenance and for reimbursement of expenses (“the Family Court judgment”).¹

[2] The appeal is on the grounds that the Judge failed to undertake the analysis of the reasonable needs of each of the appellant and the respondent, required by s 65 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (“the Act”). The respondent contends that there was no error in the Judge’s assessment, and that the maintenance order should stand.

Relevant factual background

[3] The appellant and the respondent were in a relationship as de facto partners between June 2007 and August 2009. Their relationship was, therefore, of two years two months, and was a relationship of short duration, as defined by s 2E(1)(b) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

[4] When the relationship began, the respondent had recently returned to New Zealand after having spent some ten years overseas. She had some savings, which were put towards the purchase of a residential section at a beach north of Auckland. While overseas she had worked as a contract accountant, but she has not worked in that…

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 CAM v JMP

Details

AGLC: CAM v JMP [2013] NZHC 592
Case: [2013] NZHC 592
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, CAM appealed against a Family Court judgment which ordered him to pay JMP maintenance of $2,000 a week until their youngest child turned five. CAM argued that the maintenance obligation should cease when the child turned three and that the quantum of maintenance ordered was excessive. JMP maintained that the maintenance order should continue until the child started school and that the amount ordered was appropriate.

The High Court found that the maintenance order should continue until the child started school, as it was reasonable given the young age of the children and the respondent's study towards a Master's Degree. However, the Court found that the Family Court had erred in assessing the quantum of maintenance. The Family Court had based its assessment on an interim judgment and the respondent's budget, rather than her actual expenditure. The Court also failed to properly assess the appellant's reasonable needs and means. As a result, the High Court substituted a maintenance order of $1,680 a week, effective from the date of the judgment until the child started school.

Finally, the High Court allowed the appeal against an order that CAM reimburse JMP $3,504 for certain expenses. The Court found that the claim had been contested and that CAM had been supporting JMP and the children financially since separation.

Orders