Craig v Keith - [2017] NZHC 1720

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF PARTIES. ORDER PROHIBITING SEARCH, COPYING OR INSPECTION OF THE COURT FILES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT LEAVE OF A JUDGE ON AN APPLICATION MADE ON NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES. THIS IS AN ANONYMISED VERSION OF A JUDGMENT AND MAY BE PUBLISHED IN THIS FORM.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2015-404-002831 [2017] NZHC 1720

BETWEEN
CRAIG

Appellant

AND

KEITH Respondent

Hearing: 29 June 2017

Counsel:

V A Crawshaw for the Appellant
J Hosking for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 July 2017 at 1.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Anderson Creagh Lai, Auckland
Grove Darlow, Auckland
V A Crawshaw, Barrister, Auckland
Jo Hosking, Barrister, Rotorua

CRAIG v KEITH [2017] NZHC 1720 [25 July 2017]

[1] The appellant, Mr Craig, appeals against a decision of the Family Court awarding the respondent, Ms Keith, spousal maintenance.

[2] A core issue in the Family Court’s decision was the finding that the parties had been in a de facto relationship of three years’ or more duration. Mr Craig accepts they were in a de facto relationship, but he contends it was a relationship of short duration.

[3] Whether the relationship is one of short duration or not determines the relevant legal test for whether spousal maintenance should be ordered. If the Judge was wrong to determine the relationship was not one of short duration, he will have applied the wrong test for the award of spousal maintenance. In this way the correctness of the Judge’s decision on the duration of the relationship is pivotal to the outcome of the appeal.

[4] In addition to the appeal Mr Craig made an interlocutory application seeking leave to adduce additional evidence. However, he abandoned this application at the appeal hearing.

[5] For the reasons given below I am satisfied the Judge made an error in the course of making his decision on the relationship’s duration. The parties acknowledged that if I formed this view it would be necessary for the spousal maintenance award to be set aside and for the question of such award to be referred back to the Family Court for re-consideration.

Maintenance awards made in the Family Court

[6] Following separation, Ms Keith applied for spousal maintenance on 28

March 2013 seeking both interim and substantive spousal maintenance orders. An order for interim spousal maintenance of $6,000 per month was made on 26 July
2013.1 Mr Craig appealed that decision. His appeal was dismissed on 12 November

2013.2

[7] On 28 October 2015 Judge Burns in the Family Court ordered Mr Craig to pay past spousal maintenance and future spousal maintenance to Ms Keith.3
Mr Craig appeals this decision. The appeal is wide ranging. He appeals the finding that the relationship was not of short duration; the finding that he is liable for maintenance; the duration…

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 Craig v Keith

Details

AGLC: Craig v Keith [2017] NZHC 1720
Case: [2017] NZHC 1720
Decision Date: 25 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craig v Keith, Mr Craig appealed against a decision of the Family Court awarding Ms Keith spousal maintenance. The core issue in the appeal was the finding of the Family Court that the parties had been in a de facto relationship of three years’ or more duration. If the Judge was wrong to determine the relationship was not one of short duration, he would have applied the wrong test for the award of spousal maintenance. The correctness of the Judge’s decision on the duration of the relationship was therefore pivotal to the outcome of the appeal. The High Court found that the Judge had made an error in the course of making his decision on the relationship’s duration and that the matter should be referred back to the Family Court for reconsideration. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Family Court was set aside. The matter was returned to the Family Court to be decided again.

Orders