Lobb v Ryan - [2020] NZHC 834

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1595

[2020] NZHC 834

UNDER Family Proceedings Act 1980, Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003

IN THE MATTER

an application for occupation order and ancillary furniture order and associated ancillary relief and application for

maintenance

BETWEEN

STUART JAMES LOBB

Appellant

AND

VERENA COLLEEN RYAN

Respondent

Hearing: 27 February 2020

Appearances:

Appellant in person

P Cobcroft for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Occupation and ancillary orders/spousal maintenance appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

LOBB v RYAN [2020] NZHC 834 [30 April 2020]

[1] The appellant, Stuart Lobb, has appealed two judgments of Judge Burns in the Family Court at Auckland. These two judgments which I shall refer to as the occupation order judgment1 and the spousal maintenance judgment2 respectively, addressed and dismissed a number of applications brought by Mr Lobb in the aftermath of the breakdown of his marriage with the respondent, Verena Ryan.

[2] The present appeals were heard at the same time as a third appeal brought by Mr Lobb against another decision of Judge Burns granting dissolution of the parties’ marriage,3 which was addressed in a separate judgment.4

[3] The appeal of the occupation order judgment is governed by s 39 of the Property Relationships Act 1976 (“PRA 1976”), while s 174 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (“FPA 1980”) applies to the appeal of the spousal maintenance judgment. Both these sections require the appeals to be addressed pursuant to the High Court Rules 2016 and ss 126 – 130 of the District Court Act 2016. Section 127 of the District Court Act in particular provides that this type of appeal is by way of rehearing, and is therefore governed by the principles articulated in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitching Lodestar.5 However, to the extent that either of the appeals involves the consideration of the exercise of judicial discretion, Mr Lobb must show that Judge Burns made an error of law, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take account of relevant considerations; or was plainly wrong.6

Background

[4] Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan were married on in January 2000, and separated in October 2016. At the date of separation they were living at 23 Orakei Road, Remuera (“23 Orakei Road”) with their two children born in 2001 and 2002 respectively.

1      Lobb v Ryan [2019] NZFC 5249.
2      Lobb v Ryan [2019] NZFC 5254.
3      Lobb v Lobb [2019] NZFC 5268.
4      Lobb v Ryan [2020] NZHC 348.
5      Austin Nichols & Co…

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 Lobb v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Lobb v Ryan [2020] NZHC 834
Case: [2020] NZHC 834
Decision Date: 30 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lobb v Ryan involves an appeal by Stuart Lobb against two judgments of the Family Court in Auckland. The first judgment dismissed Mr Lobb's application for an occupation order and ancillary relief over a property, while the second judgment dismissed his application for spousal maintenance from Verena Ryan. The High Court, in turn, dismissed Mr Lobb's appeals against both judgments. The court found that the Family Court was correct in declining to grant an occupation order as the right to occupy the property was not classified as relationship property. Additionally, the court determined that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. Regarding the spousal maintenance appeal, the court held that Mr Lobb's application was fundamentally misconceived as it was not the appropriate forum to address the financial obligations between the parties. The court concluded that spousal maintenance should only be granted if the applicant is unable to meet their reasonable needs, which Mr Lobb failed to demonstrate in this case.

Orders