Turner v Turner - [2025] NZHC 1525

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, AND 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2024-470-000018

[2025] NZHC 1525

UNDER Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

NORMA TURNER

Appellant

AND

GORDON JOHN TURNER

First Respondent

GORDON JOHN TURNER, ANDREW JAMES TURNER and TRUSTEE COMPANY

(RENRUT) LIMITED as trustees of the RENRUT FAMILY TRUST

Second Respondent [discontinued]

GORDON JOHN TURNER and TRUSTEE COMPANY (MELABOO) LIMITED as

trustees of the MELABOO FAMILY TRUST Third Respondent [discontinued]

On the papers

Counsel:

J R Hosking for Appellant First Respondent in person

Judgment:

11 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[on costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 June 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TURNER v TURNER [2025] NZHC 1525 [11 June 2025]

[1] This judgment considers an application by Norma Turner for costs following her largely successful appeal against a Family Court decision determining relationship property and maintenance following the break-up of her marriage to Gordon John Turner. The application, like the appeal to which it relates, has taken a somewhat unusual course, as set out below.

The Substantive Judgment

[2] In a judgment issued on 13 December 2024,1 Mrs Turner was substantially successful in her appeal against aspects of the Family Court decision which determined the relationship property of Mrs Turner and Mr Turner and made orders for final maintenance.2

[3]In the Substantive Judgment, I held that:3

(a)Mr Turner was to pay Mrs Turner the sum of $53,099.50 to equalise the division of relationship property chattels;

(b)Mrs Turner’s share in the value of Pacific Coast Realty Ltd (PCR), a company which both parties accepted was relationship property, was
$140,607.64; and

(c)Mr Turner was to pay Mrs Turner pre-dissolution maintenance of
$59,800 and post-dissolution maintenance of $35,000.

[4] I also held that Mrs Turner was entitled to costs on a 2B basis. In addition, I recorded that, because both sides bore responsibility for the protracted way in which the appeal had been conducted, I saw no case for indemnity or increased costs.4 I gave leave, however, for the parties to file memoranda on costs in accordance with a timetable set out in the judgment.5

1 Turner v Turner [2024] NZHC 3826 [Substantive Judgment].
2 Turner v Turner [2023] NZFC 13674.
3 Substantive Judgment, above n 1, at [180].
4 At [191].
5 At [192].

Claim for costs by Mrs Turner

[5] In submissions dated 3 February 2025, Ms Hosking, Mrs Turner’s counsel, submitted that this Court should determine costs in the Family Court (which, at the date of Ms Hosking’s submissions, had not been determined by the Family Court), as well as costs in the High Court. Ms Hosking submitted that I should order Mr Turner to pay the…

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 Turner v Turner

Details

AGLC: Turner v Turner [2025] NZHC 1525
Case: [2025] NZHC 1525
Decision Date: 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Norma Turner sought costs from Gordon John Turner following her successful appeal against a Family Court decision regarding their relationship property and maintenance. The appeal was largely successful, with Norma awarded $53,099.50 for an equal division of chattels, a $140,607.64 share in the value of Pacific Coast Realty Ltd, and maintenance payments of $59,800 pre-dissolution and $35,000 post-dissolution. The appeal had been protracted due to actions by both parties, but neither were deemed to warrant indemnity or increased costs. Norma's counsel requested costs from the Family Court and High Court, totaling $101,206.88, arguing that Gordon had failed to settle and provide relevant information.

Gordon attempted to appeal the substantive judgment but later withdrew his application. Norma sought costs for preparing her opposition to Gordon's appeal. The court found no basis to decide Family Court costs, as it is customary for such matters to be remitted back to the lower court. For High Court costs, the court considered the costs breakdown provided by Norma's counsel, finding the 2C costs for preparing the appeal case to be appropriate. The court found that while there was a valid offer to settle under rule 14.10, it was not sufficiently beneficial to warrant an uplift on scale costs. The court also found that Gordon's unreasonable actions, such as delaying the provision of essential information, contributed to the prolonged appeal process.

The court ordered Gordon to pay Norma $35,218.30 in costs, comprising $26,170.50 for the appeal and $5,223.80 in disbursements, and $3,824 for costs related to Gordon's withdrawn application for leave to appeal. This decision balanced the procedural and substantive issues, taking into account the actions of both parties during the litigation.

Orders