Hair v Cook - [2025] NZCA 547

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA471/2024
[2025] NZCA 547

BETWEEN	IAN MUIR HAIR Appellant
AND	ANNA JENNIE COOK Respondent

Court:	Hinton and Whata JJ
Counsel:	G M Illingworth KC and R M N Marsich for Appellant J W A Johnson and N G Lawrence for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	17 October 2025 at 11:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe respondent’s application to adduce further evidence is granted on the basis set out in [14] and [16].
BThe appellant’s application to adduce further evidence is granted in part, on the basis set out in [22]. The application is otherwise declined.
CCosts are reserved pending determination of the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

On 12 November 2024, Mr Hair (the appellant) was granted leave by this Court to bring an appeal against a decision of the High Court, on appeal from the Family Court, ordering him to pay interim spousal maintenance to Ms Cook (the respondent).[1] The Family Court ordered payment at the rate of $6,580 per week.[2] The High Court reduced the award to $6,000 per week.[3] Both courts relied on Mr Hair having access to trust capital. Leave was granted on the basis that the appeal raises an issue relating to the circumstances in which trust resources can be considered for the purposes of interim spousal maintenance proceedings, an issue on which there is an absence of Court of Appeal authority.[4]
[1]Hair v Cook [2024] NZCA 584 [leave judgment]; and Cook v Hair [2023] NZFC 8246 [Family Court judgment].
[2]Family Court judgment, above n 1, at [47].
[3]Hair v Cook [2024] NZHC 347 [judgment under appeal] at [83(d)].
[4]Leave judgment, above n 1, at [4].
The respondent and the appellant have each applied to adduce further evidence in respect of the appeal. The appellant only applies to adduce further evidence if the respondent is granted leave. We address the two applications below.
We note, before doing so, that this appeal has been somewhat overtaken by developments since leave was granted. There have been a significant number of applications and appeals in this proceeding, since the appeal was filed. These relevantly include the making of two further interim maintenance orders, both of which, in turn, have been the subject of appeals to the High Court, resulting in those applications being remitted to the Family Court for re-hearing.[5]
[5]See Hair v Cook [2025] NZHC 1677 at [26]; and Hair v Cook [2025] NZHC 1679 at [27].
Of particular relevance to this appeal, original counsel for Ms Cook was debarred from related relationship property proceedings in September 2024,[6] and subsequently withdrew from this proceeding (concerning the Family Proceedings Act 1980) on the eve of the hearing of a further application to debar, being 13 May 2025. This has raised a new issue regarding the current interim maintenance award as the award is substantially to cover Ms Cook’s former counsel’s fees. Mr Hair argues 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 Hair v Cook

Details

AGLC: Hair v Cook [2025] NZCA 547
Case: [2025] NZCA 547
Decision Date: 17 October 2025 at 11:00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Hair v Cook was heard, involving Ian Muir Hair, the appellant, and Anna Jennie Cook, the respondent. The dispute arose from an order by the High Court, which had upheld an interim spousal maintenance award against Mr Hair by the Family Court. Mr Hair appealed against this decision, focusing on the consideration of trust resources in interim spousal maintenance proceedings, an issue lacking in Court of Appeal authority. Both parties applied to present additional evidence relevant to the appeal.

The court had to decide whether to allow the respondent to adduce new evidence regarding financial statements, the sale of a property, and an affidavit related to trust resources. The court also had to consider Mr Hair's application to adduce further evidence in response to the respondent's submissions, contingent on the respondent's application being successful. The principles guiding the admission of fresh, credible, and cogent evidence were applied, with a focus on whether the new evidence could update the court on relevant matters without necessitating a complete rehearing of the case.

The court granted the respondent's application to adduce certain financial statements, property sale documents, and an affidavit, finding them to be fresh and cogent. The loan in question, which was not disclosed in Mr Hair's affidavit of assets and liabilities, was deemed relevant to the issues of his ability to pay maintenance and control over trust resources. Mr Hair's application was partially granted, allowing him to provide evidence regarding the $3.25 million loan to clarify its status and value, though other requested evidence was declined due to lack of cogency or credibility. The court reserved costs pending the determination of the appeal.

Orders