Legal Research
Cases
Hair v Cook

Hair v Cook

Case [2025] NZHC 1677 24 June 2025

Interim Maintenance

Unconscionable Conduct

Trusts & Equity

Costs

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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 1677

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: 8 May 2025

Appearances:

G M Illingworth KC and RMN Marsich for appellant JWA Johnson and N G Lawrence for respondent

Date of judgment:

24 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 June 2025 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HAIR v COOK [2025] NZHC 1677 [24 June 2025]

[1] Ian Hair appeals each the 5 March 2024 decision of Judge S J Maude and the 19 September 2024 decision of Judge S M Morrison in the Family Court at North Shore,1 making consecutive interim maintenance orders under s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) directing Mr Hair’s payment to Anna Cook of respectively $6,000 and $4,700 per week.

Background

[2] Ms Cook and Mr Hair separated in early August 2022 after a relationship of some 20 years. Their property primarily was held in the Hair Family Trust and the Muirian Trust, both settled by Mr Hair, from which disbursements had supported their relationship and of which Mr Hair and another are trustees of each. Ms Cook and Mr Hair are among the trusts’ discretionary beneficiaries.

[3] In addition to her claim for division of their property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the 1976 Act), in terms of s 64 of the 1980 Act, Ms Cook contends Mr Hair is liable to maintain her as necessary to meet her reasonable needs she cannot practically meet because of particular relevant circumstances: principally, her ability to become self-supporting in transition from the standard of living while they lived together. Section 64A requires each party to “assume responsibility, within a period of time that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the particular case, for meeting his or her own needs”, on expiry of which time “neither … is liable to maintain the other under s 64”, subject to the reasonableness of such maintenance having regard to their ages, the duration of their relationship and their ability to become self-supporting.

[4] On Ms Cook filing an application for a maintenance order, s 82 of the 1980 Act enabled a District Court Judge to make an order directing Mr Hair “to pay such periodical sum as the District Court Judge thinks reasonable towards [Ms Cook’s] future maintenance … until the final determination of the proceedings or until the order sooner ceases to be in force”. Section 82(4) provides such order…

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] NZHC 1677
Case: [2025] NZHC 1677
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Hair appeals the 5 March 2024 and 19 September 2024 decisions of the Family Court at North Shore, made by Judge S J Maude and Judge S M Morrison respectively, ordering him to pay Anna Cook $6,000 and $4,700 per week in interim maintenance under section 82 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Hair argues the Judges were wrong to consider him able to access trust assets to pay Cook, misapprehended his control over the trusts, and failed to properly consider the trusts' financial circumstances. The High Court held that the Judges erred by not considering whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for Hair to access the trust assets to pay Cook. Both decisions were set aside and remitted for rehearing. Costs were reserved for determination on short memoranda.

Orders