Lawrence v Lawrence - [2017] NZHC 3261

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

THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING- JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-002144 [2017] NZHC 3261

UNDER the Family Proceedings Act 1980

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under Section 174(1)(AA) Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN

JENNIFER LAWRENCE Appellant

AND

TREVOR LAWRENCE Respondent

Hearing: 17 August 2017

Appearances:

S Jefferson QC for Appellant
B Carter for Respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2017 at 4.30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Lawrence v Lawrence [2017] NZHC 3261 [20 December 2017]

[1] In June 2016, Judge PR Grace in the Family Court at Auckland1 made an order that Trevor Lawrence should pay spousal maintenance at a rate of $2,500.00 per week to his wife Jennifer Lawrence, from whom she is separated.2 Ms Lawrence appeals against the decision.

[2] Ms Lawrence, a New Zealander, and Mr Lawrence, who is British, are lawyers. They started living together in Bahrain in 2008, and were married in 2009. They have three children: a daughter Sally aged 7 and two sons, Stephen aged 6 and Michael aged 3. The family lived in the Middle East until they moved to New Zealand in April
2014.

[3] Mr Lawrence was unable to obtain employment in New Zealand and the couple separated on 22 August 2015. Since 1 September 2015, Mr Lawrence has been employed as chief executive officer for an overseas company and is based in South- East Asia. His responsibilities involve extensive travel to other parts of the world but he visits New Zealand to see the children, around once a month.

[4] Prior to Mr Lawrence’s departure for his new role, maintenance and support had not been resolved. On 28 September 2015, Ms Lawrence applied for interim spousal maintenance (without notice) and past/future spousal maintenance (with notice).

[5] In a Minute dated 28 September 2015, Judge GF Ellis made an interim spousal maintenance order in the sum of $2,500 a week on a without notice basis. A notice of defence was filed on 16 October 2015 and affidavits were filed. There was a hearing on 27 April 2016 before Judge Grace to determine the future spousal maintenance
obligations of Mr Lawrence towards Ms Lawrence.

1 H v H [2016] NZFC 3679.
2 The names of the parties have been anonymised and the names of the children have been changed in this judgment, consistently with the requirement that the identity of the parties and the children shall not be published.

[6] Judge Grace noted that the application was to determine the future maintenance obligations of Mr Lawrence for Ms Lawrence alone, there being no apparent dispute over the payments he is making for “child support” or educational fees for the children’s private schools and associated costs. The Judge…

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 Lawrence v Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Lawrence [2017] NZHC 3261
Case: [2017] NZHC 3261
Decision Date: 20 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Jennifer Lawrence, the appellant, appealed against a spousal maintenance order made by Judge Grace in the Family Court. The appellant sought an increase in the spousal maintenance payments made by Trevor Lawrence, the respondent, from $2,500 to $4,800.68 per week. In response, Mr Lawrence contended that the appellant's claims were unreasonable and that the current spousal maintenance payments were appropriate. The appeal hinged on three principal objections to the decision of the Family Court, namely that the appellant should receive an allowance for assistance in the form of a nanny, the Judge should have addressed the overall household expenses, and the order was made on the assumption that the appellant was earning and would continue to earn $60,000 - $70,000 per annum, but she disputes that she ever earned that income and in any event her income has ceased. The Court found that the appellant was able to obtain part-time work at flexible hours, and from home if need be, at a level of income which would enable her to engage even part-time assistance with childcare arrangements and housekeeping responsibilities. The Court also recognised that the burdens of assuming full-time responsibility for the care of three young children, including one whose condition requires a dedicated teacher aide at school and close attention while at home, imposed considerable physical and emotional burdens on the appellant. The Court was satisfied that the Judge erred in his calculation of the appellant's then current income and of her future income earning ability. The Court adopted the approach of looking at the total reasonable cost of running the household, including care for the children, deducting the income and other contributions made by Mr Lawrence as child support payments, and then taking into account what the Court assessed to be the appellant's ability to work. On that basis, the spousal maintenance figure paid by Mr Lawrence should be increased by $500 per week. The Court held that the appellant had not attempted to secure further employment or turn her rental property into an asset with a reasonable return, and those options were available to her. The Court allowed the appeal in part, varying the order made in the Family Court for the payment of $2,500.00 per week by way of future maintenance by ordering that the sum shall be increased to $3,000.00 per week from 1 February 2018, and remain in force until 21 April 2019.

Orders