Clayton v Clayton - [2015] NZHC 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2014-463-000112 [2015] NZHC 765

BETWEEN
MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON

Appellant

AND

MELANIE ANN CLAYTON Respondent / Cross-appellant

Hearing: 27 February 2015

Counsel:

M J McCartney QC and K E Sullivan for the Appellant
J R Hosking for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 20 April 2015 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date ……………….........

CLAYTON v CLAYTON [2015] NZHC 765 [20 April 2015]

Introduction

[1] In a decision delivered on 18 June 2014 Judge Munro made an order for periodic maintenance under which Mark Clayton was required to pay his former wife $15,000 per month and provide her with a late-model vehicle suitable to her needs.1 Mr Clayton appeals the decision on the grounds that:

(a) The Judge made findings of fact that were not open to her on the evidence;

(b)No qualifying circumstance existed under s 64 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (FPA) that would have entitled Mrs Clayton2 to a final maintenance order;

(c) If a qualifying circumstance did exist, the Judge failed to undertake the mandatory analysis required by s 65 FPA;

(d)The Judge failed to address the issue arising under s 64A FPA whether it was unreasonable for Mrs Clayton to do without maintenance and reasonable for Mr Clayton to provide maintenance.

[2] A further ground of appeal, whether, as a matter of law, it was open to the Judge to include an allowance for legal fees in the final maintenance order, was heard separately and determined in favour of Mrs Clayton.3

[3] Mrs Clayton has cross-appealed the judgment on the grounds that the Judge: (a) failed to properly address her claim for past maintenance; and
(b)in determining her entitlement to a vehicle, failed to properly assess her reasonable needs by reference to the standard of living enjoyed
during the marriage.

1      Clayton v Clayton [2014] NZFC 4193.
2      Although the parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2009 counsel used the honorific “Mrs”. I
therefore do likewise.
3      Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550.

Appeals from the Family Court against maintenance orders

[4] The right of appeal from maintenance orders made by the Family Court arises under s 174 of the FPA. The High Court Rules and ss 74–78 of the District Courts Act 1947 apply to the appeal as if it were an appeal under s 72 of the District Courts Act. That means the appeal is by way of rehearing.4 On hearing the appeal, the High Court may:5

(a) make any decision or decisions it thinks should have been made:

(b) direct the District Court in which the decision appealed against was made—

(i) to rehear the proceedings concerned; or

(ii) to consider or determine (whether for the first time or again)
any matters the High Court directs; or

(iii) to enter judgment for any party to the proceedings concerned the High Court directs:

(c)…

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 Clayton v Clayton

Details

AGLC: Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 765
Case: [2015] NZHC 765
Decision Date: 20 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clayton v Clayton is an appeal against a Family Court order requiring the appellant to pay periodic maintenance to his former spouse. The maintenance order was made in the context of ongoing litigation between the parties over the division of relationship property. The appellant appealed the maintenance order on the grounds that the Family Court had erred in its factual findings, failed to establish a qualifying circumstance to justify maintenance, failed to undertake the mandatory analysis required by statute, and failed to consider whether it was unreasonable for the former spouse to do without maintenance. The former spouse cross-appealed, arguing that the Family Court had failed to properly address her claims for past maintenance and for a vehicle. The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was partly successful. The maintenance order was reduced from $5,000 to $2,700 per month for personal expenses. The former spouse's cross-appeal was also partly successful. The variation of the maintenance order was to be backdated to May 2012. The former spouse was not entitled to a better quality vehicle.

Orders