Hair v Cook

[2025] NZHC 2033

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https:// court/restrictions-on-publishing-information/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2970

[2025] NZHC 2033

UNDER

the Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN

IAN MUIR HAIR

Appellant

AND

ANNA JENNIE COOK

Respondent

CIV-2024-404-3165

UNDER

the Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN

IAN MUIR HAIR

Appellant

AND

ANNA JENNIE COOK

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	G M Illingworth KC and RMN Marsich for appellant JWA Johnson and N G Lawrence for respondent
Date of judgment:	24 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 July 2025 at 3.00pm. Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HAIR v COOK - Costs [2025] NZHC 2033 [24 July 2025]

[1]        My 24 June 2025 judgment—upholding the appeal, setting aside the Judges’ 5 March and 19 September 2024 orders and directing the District Court rehear the applications for interim maintenance—also reserved costs for determination on any memoranda to be filed.1

[2]        Mr Hair seeks 2B costs and disbursements amounting to $24,042. Ms Cook says, given the interim maintenance applications are to be reheard, Mr Hair cannot be thought the successful party entitled to an award of costs. She additionally argues his conduct in the Family Court is “a war of attrition”, disentitling him to costs in this Court. And she says, by reason of his exclusion of her from contended “familial wealth”, she cannot pay costs. She proposes costs be refused.

[3]        Despite the principle determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious, I may refuse or reduce costs if so justified.2 I consider costs should be refused here: I declined to engage in Mr Hair’s principal attacks on the orders’ subject matter and scope;3 and the interim maintenance applications are to be reheard to address the error infecting both orders4. The orders accordingly have been overturned on a basis other than was sought and Ms Cook’s principled entitlement to interim maintenance remains unaffected, meaning the expense of appeal may not be justified. I will refuse costs accordingly.

[4]        I order costs on the appeal lie where they fell or fall, to be borne by the party incurring them.

—Jagose J

Counsel/Solicitors:

G M Illingworth KC, Auckland

RMN Marsich, Barrister, Auckland JWA Johnson, Barrister, Auckland N G Lawrence, Barrister, Auckland Dyer Whitechurch, Auckland

Gallie Miles, Te Awamutu

1      Hair v Cook [2025] NZHC 1677 at [28]–[30].

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.7(g)

3      Hair v Cook, above n 1, at [18], [20] and [27(b)].

4      At [24]–[26].