North v North

[2014] NZHC 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-002070 [2014] NZHC 2001

BETWEEN

NORTH

Appellant

AND

NORTH Respondent

Judgment:                22 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 22 August 2014 at 3.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

NORTH v NORTH [2014] NZHC 2001 [22 August 2014]

[1]      In a decision delivered a year ago I allowed Ms N’s appeal and set aside an order made in the Family Court that required a payment of relationship property to a third party, which the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to make.  However, I also made a declaration regarding the status of that payment.  As a result, there was no tangible benefit to Ms N from the appeal.

[2]      Ms N has now sought costs of $15,760.70 on a 2B basis.  She relies on the usual principle that a party who fails should pay costs to the party who succeeds.1

[3]      Mr N opposes any award of costs on the basis that the appeal did not advance Ms N’s position and only had the effect of delaying the resolution of the substantive issues further. There has been no response by Ms N to this submission.

[4]      I accept Mr Vickerman’s submission made on behalf of Mr N.  Whilst the appeal  succeeded  the  end  result  was  merely the  resolution  of  the  status  of  the payment  in  question,  which  could  have  been  achieved  in  the  context  of  the substantive hearing.   In addition, I am mindful that the payment in question was made to the Inland Revenue Department in respect of a company tax debt in circumstances  where  the  shares  in  the  company  were  all  or  partly  relationship

property.  I therefore decline the application for costs.  Costs shall lie where they fall.

P Courtney J

1      High Court Rules, r 14.2(a).