GDB v CDB - [2013] NZHC 2054

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES AND THE CHILDREN.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2010-483-315
[2013] NZHC 2054

BETWEEN
G D B

Plaintiff

AND

C D B

Defendant

Hearing:	18 July 2013
Counsel:	G Mason for Plaintiff A Barker for Defendant
Judgment:	21 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

G D B v C D B [2013] NZHC 2054 [21 August 2013]

Table of Contents

Paragraph No.

Introduction [1]

Issues [8]

Was there a 18 November 2009 agreement to end Mr Barnes’
child support obligations detailed in the December 2008 agreement? [19]

Was Mr Barnes in breach of his maintenance obligations
in November 2009? [21]

Total payments [55]

Appropriation [59]

Was the credit balance in the joint account appropriated? [66] Duress [72]
Characteristics of victim [94]

Relationships of the parties [103]

Circumstances under which the release agreement was signed [106]

Coercion and protest [122]

Unconscionable bargain [125]

Child Support Act 1991 [140]

If there was a breach, is Mr Barnes relieved from his obligation to pay child support under the agreement for the period of suspension because of the provisions of the Child Support Act,
or are the damages too remote? [158]

Are Mr Barnes’ obligations to pay a half share of private school fees a child support obligation covered by the provisions of s 20
of the Child Support Act 1991? [170]

Summary [176]

Costs [178]

Introduction

[1] In this judgment the names of the parties are anonymised. This case has previously been before the Court of Appeal on appeal from summary judgment orders. The Court of Appeal decided the case could be cited as Barnes v Barnes (not the parties’ real names). That citation should continue with this judgment.

[2] On 15 December 2008, after six months of separation, Mr and Mrs Barnes signed an agreement which covered a division of their property; the custody and access arrangements for three children; maintenance for the children; and the parties’ obligations for the payment of boarding school fees (the December 2008 agreement).

[3] Mrs Barnes was to have custody of the children. Mr Barnes was working overseas and his access to the children was, therefore, going to be sporadic. Mr Barnes agreed to pay $4,000 per month child support for the three children and to pay half of their private boarding school fees (Mrs Barnes was to pay the other half). Mrs Barnes was to have the matrimonial home transferred to her and Mr Barnes’ half share ($145,000) was to be paid by her to him on or before 30 May 2010.

[4] In November 2009 Mr and Mrs Barnes agreed that Mr Barnes’ $4,000 a monthly child support payment could end (the circumstances under which this occurred are important to this case). When it came time for Mrs Barnes to pay the
$145,000 she refused. She said that when she agreed to end Mr Barnes’ child support obligation, Mr Barnes had been in breach of the agreement 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GDB v CDB and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 2054
Decision Date: 21 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GDB v CDB is a complex dispute between former spouses regarding child support obligations and property settlement. The dispute centres on a December 2008 agreement between the parties that outlined the division of property, custody arrangements, maintenance payments, and private school fees. The key issues in this case revolve around whether an agreement to end the child support obligation in November 2009 was valid, whether there was a breach of the agreement, and whether the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 apply to the case.

The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that there was an agreement to end the child support obligation, but left open the question of whether the agreement was obtained by duress or was an unconscionable bargain. The High Court found that there was no breach of the child support agreement by Mr Barnes, as he had made sufficient payments to cover the required amount. The Court also found that the release agreement was not obtained by duress or was an unconscionable bargain. Furthermore, the Court held that the Child Support Act 1991 applies to suspend Mr Barnes' child support obligations under the December 2008 agreement while he is subject to a formula assessment. Additionally, the Court found that Mr Barnes' obligation to pay half of the private school fees is a child support obligation covered by the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991.

As a result, the Court ruled that Mr Barnes is entitled to $145,000 from Mrs Barnes, and her counterclaim/set off is dismissed. The case highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding between parties in separation agreements, as well as the role of the Child Support Act 1991 in resolving disputes over child support obligations.

Orders