Knight v Knight - [2022] NZHC 62

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. THIS IS AN ANONYMISED VERSION OF THE JUDGMENT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE

SEE https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing- judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2021-409-415

[2022] NZHC 62

BETWEEN
JOHN KNIGHT

Appellant

AND

MARY KNIGHT

Respondent

Hearing: 8 December 2021

Appearances:

P F Whiteside QC and B K Ferguson for Appellant R L Powell and J Lucas for Respondent

Judgment:

1 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

KNIGHT v KNIGHT [2022] NZHC 62 [1 February 2022]

[1] The appellant, John Knight, appeals against a judgment of the Family Court ordering the payment of interim spousal maintenance to the respondent, Mary Knight (the Judgment).1

[2]By the Judgment, Judge J K Hambleton ordered Mr Knight to pay Mrs Knight

$17,000 per month from September 2021 to February 2022.

[3] Mr Knight asserts, on five grounds, that the Family Court erred in fact and law. He asks this Court to quash the interim maintenance order and seeks costs.

[4] Mrs Knight has filed a conditional cross-appeal. In the event this Court is satisfied that the interim maintenance order should be set aside, she seeks an order varying the interim maintenance payable for legal costs to $11,000 (to include a greater sum on account of interim maintenance for legal costs).

Background

[5] Mr and Mrs Knight are 40 and 35 years of age, respectively. They lived together from January 2010 to January 2020. They were married in December 2013 and have one child (born in March 2019). There is an interim parenting order in place whereby Mr Knight has care of the child from 9 am on Friday to 4 pm on Sunday (week 1) and from 9 am on Thursday to 4 pm on Friday (week 2).

[6] The parties have before the Family Court applications for relationship property, maintenance and care of their child.

[7] Under pt 6 Family Proceedings Act 1980 (the Act) the Family Court may make orders for spousal maintenance. Under s 82 of the Act an interim order of up to six months’ duration may be made. The s 82 jurisdiction allows the Court to make more than one interim maintenance order.2

1 Knight v Knight [2021] NZFC 8560 [the Judgment]. The names of the parties have been anonymised both in the Judgment and in this judgment, as have the names of associated entities.
2 Cooper v Pinney [2016] NZHC 1633 at [64]–[65].

[8]Mrs Knight has obtained three such orders:

(a)First order — in May 2020 Mrs Knight sought a monthly sum of
$13,691.62. A consent order was made on 2 June 2020 for payment by Mr Knight of maintenance to Mrs Knight of $1,000 per week for 26 weeks from 25 May 2020. Additionally, a balance in the parties’ joint bank account (approximately $17,000) was to…

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 Knight v Knight

Details

AGLC: Knight v Knight [2022] NZHC 62
Case: [2022] NZHC 62
Decision Date: 1 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, John Knight appeals against a Family Court judgment ordering the payment of interim spousal maintenance to his former wife, Mary Knight. John contends the Family Court erred in fact and law and asks the Court to quash the order and seek costs. Mary has filed a conditional cross-appeal seeking a variation of the interim maintenance order for legal costs to $11,000 if the interim maintenance order is set aside. The Court found the appeal without merit and dismissed it. The Court ordered that the appeal costs be paid by John to Mary on a 2B basis. The Court also terminated the trust arrangement referred to in the interlocutory order dated 17 November 2021 and ordered the payments required under the Family Court judgment dated 24 August 2021 to resume and be made in terms of that judgment for the stipulated term. The Court allowed leave to the parties to apply for further directions relating to the sum held by Argyle Welsh Finnigan, should further directions be necessary.

Orders