Joyce v Bowen

[2014] NZHC 921

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2013-485-4078 [2014] NZHC 921

BETWEEN

MR JOYCE

First Appellant

AND

MR JOYCE, MR P J M AND MR B J K
as trustees of the Joyce Trust
Second Appellants

AND

MS BOWEN Respondent

Hearing:	On Papers
Counsel:	J J Delany for Appellant F M Gush for Respondent
Judgment:	6 May 2014

COSTS JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      In this appeal the appellants challenged the two classification decisions of the Family Court relating to a $182,000 commission pool and a $150,000 loan together with orders made under ss 44C and 182 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The respondent now seeks costs. The appellants say costs should lie where they fall.

[2]      As to the $150,000 loan claim the appellants’ appeal failed.  As to the life insurance commission book value this was $183,000 which the Judge found was all

relationship property.   I concluded that $67,247 was relationship property and the

JOYCE v JOYCE, P J M & B J K v BOWEN [2014] NZHC 921 [6 May 2014]

rest was separate property and so the appellants were partially successful.  Finally, I

confirmed the orders under ss 44C and 182 as made in the Family Court.

[3]      The respondent says that it mostly won the appeal.  Offers of settlement made by Mr Joyce were well below the ultimate amount awarded in these proceedings and in other proceedings before the Family Court.  The appellants’ case is that both sides were successful in the appeal and so neither should be awarded costs.

[4]      I am  satisfied  that  while both  parties had  their successes  in  this  appeal, overall the respondent prevailed on most points.  I accept in the exchange of offers of settlement the appellant took an unrealistic approach.  I note that full 2B costs are just over $10,000.  I am satisfied the respondent is entitled to a contribution from the

appellants toward her costs which I fix at $5,000 including disbursements.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

J J Delany, Wellington
F M Gush, Upper Hutt