Meads v Muldrew - [2021] NZHC 2691

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, 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-2021-404-1666

[2021] NZHC 2691

IN THE MATTER of an appeal

BETWEEN

SCOTT BRADLEY MEADS

Appellant

AND

KATIE SARAH MULDREW

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Appellant in person

AHH Choi for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 October 2021 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors / Counsel:
The Appellant
Ms C E Wiseman and Mr AHH Choi, Barristers, Auckland Mr B Sheehan (the respondent’s instructing solicitor)

MEADS v MULDREW [2021] NZHC 2691 [8 October 2021]

[1] In this appeal against a costs judgment of Judge R von Keisenberg in the Family Court at Auckland dated 20 July 2021,1 Mr Meads seeks a stay of the costs order pending appeal.

Background

[2]The parties were in a de facto relationship for a little over four years.

[3] Following their relationship, a dispute arose under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

[4] On 19 February 2021 Judge von Keisenberg issued a judgment in favour of Ms Muldrew’s application, awarding her a half interest in a property, payment from Mr Meads for occupation rent from the date of separation and compensation.2 In view of Ms Muldrew’s success in the proceeding, the Judge indicated that she intended to award Ms Muldrew costs.

[5] Following submissions, on 20 July 2021 the Judge awarded Ms Muldrew costs of $45,000 (including disbursements) plus $1,319 for costs for the transfer of proceedings from Wellington to Auckland. The Judge also ordered Ms Muldrew to pay costs of $1,000 to a trustee company of which Mr Meads was the sole director and shareholder. Thus, the total costs payable by Mr Meads was reduced by $1,000 to
$45,319.

Stay pending appeal – principles

[6]Rule 20.10 of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that:

1 Muldrew v Meads [2021] NZFC 7037.
2 Muldrew v Meads [2021] NZFC 1096.

20.10 Stay of proceedings

(1)An appeal does not operate as a stay—

(a)of the proceedings appealed against; or

(b)of enforcement of any judgment or order appealed against.

(2)Despite subclause (1), the decision-maker or the court may, on application, do any 1 or more of the following pending determination of an appeal:

(a)order a stay of proceedings in relation to the decision appealed against:

(b)order a stay of enforcement of any judgment or order appealed against:

(c)grant any interim relief.

(3)An order made or relief granted under subclause (2) may—

(a)relate to enforcement of the whole of a judgment or order or to a particular form of enforcement:

(b)be subject to any conditions for the giving of security the decision-maker or…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meads v Muldrew and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 2691
Decision Date: 8 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Meads v Muldrew involved an appeal against a costs judgment rendered by Judge R von Keisenberg in the Family Court at Auckland. The appeal, brought by Scott Bradley Meads, sought a stay of the costs order pending appeal. The underlying dispute arose from the dissolution of a de facto relationship between the parties, leading to a property dispute under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Following a judgment in favour of Katie Sarah Muldrew, the Family Court awarded her costs of $45,000, reduced by $1,000 due to a separate order. The central legal issues involved the principles guiding a stay of proceedings pending appeal and whether the specific circumstances warranted such a stay or alternative interim relief.

The Court considered the relevant principles under Rule 20.10 of the High Court Rules 2016, which outlines the conditions under which a stay or interim relief may be granted. The Court weighed various factors, including the potential futility of the appeal if the stay were not granted, the bona fides of the applicant, the impact on the respondent or third parties, and the overall balance of convenience. Meads argued that enforcing the costs would cause undue financial distress and potentially render repayment uncertain if the appeal succeeded. However, the Court found that Meads no longer sought a stay but rather new orders pending appeal. It also determined that the appeal was not likely to be rendered nugatory without a stay, and the balance of convenience clearly weighed against granting a stay. The Court rejected alternative orders sought by Meads, noting that no such relief was requested in the interlocutory application.

The Court dismissed Meads' application for a stay and other orders, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant such relief. The judgment clarified that if costs were to be addressed, they would be determined on the papers after receiving any costs memoranda within 15 working days. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the successful party against the need to preserve the status quo pending appeal, ensuring that the appellate court can fairly decide the matter regardless of the appeal's outcome.

Orders