White v Henderson - [2025] NZHC 2274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2025-443-012

[2025] NZHC 2274

UNDER the Care of Children Act 2004

BETWEEN

ANDREW WHITE

Appellant

AND

HELEN HENDERSON

Respondent

Hearing: 16 July 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

No Appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against costs order) (Anonymous version)

Introduction

[1] Andrew White appeals against a decision of the Family Court making a costs order under s 142 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA).1 Costs of $20,000 were awarded to Helen Henderson, the respondent in this proceeding.

[2] Mr White appeals on the basis that the Family Court’s decision is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the COCA.2

1 [Henderson] v [White] [2025] NZFC 896 [the decision under appeal].
2 An order staying enforcement of that order pending resolution of the appeal was made in: [White] v [Henderson] HC New Plymouth CIV-2025-443-012, 7 April 2025 (Minute of McHerron J).

WHITE v HENDERSON [2025] NZHC 2274 (12 August 2025)

[3] Ms Henderson opposes the appeal. Her counsel filed memoranda of 2 April 2025 and 9 July 2025. However, Ms Henderson’s counsel did not appear at the appeal. Ms Henderson considers the costs decision under appeal was fair but will abide the decision of this Court.

The substantive judgment

[4] Jacob, the son of Mr White and Ms Henderson is not yet a teenager but the parties have been involved in various disputes concerning his care since he was two years of age. He is currently in Ms Henderson’s day-to-day care, with a contact arrangement with his father.

[5] A substantive judgment relating to Mr White’s contact time with Jacob was released on 24 October 2024.3 Judge Harrison found on the balance of probabilities that the child had been hurt physically by his father during their play fighting.4 However, she concluded that it was in the child’s best interests for unsupervised contact with his father be reinstated in a graduated way over time subject to reports on scheduled visits being provided to the hearing judge following the child’s visits.5

Costs decision

[6] After the substantive judgment, Ms Henderson made an application for costs seeking $33,616 on the basis of the costs schedule in the District Court Rules 2014 (the Rules).6

[7] In considering the costs award, the Judge first looked at the measure of success each party achieved. She said that at the very core of the proceeding was Ms Henderson’s claim that Mr White had been physically abusive to the child. Mr White had steadfastly denied the allegations and claimed the case was a “witch hunt”.7 The Judge made adverse findings against Mr White, saying his arguments

3      [Henderson] v [White] [2024] NZFC 13325 [the substantive judgment].
4 At [4].
5      At [5] and [187].
6      District Court Rules 2014. Schedule 4 sets out the appropriate time allocations for various steps and Schedule 5 sets out the appropriate daily rates.
7      The decision under appeal,…

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 White v Henderson

Details

AGLC: White v Henderson [2025] NZHC 2274
Case: [2025] NZHC 2274
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal by Andrew White against a Family Court decision ordering him to pay costs to Helen Henderson under s 142 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA). The appeal centres on the Family Court's decision to award costs of $20,000 to Ms Henderson following a substantive judgment regarding contact arrangements for their son, Jacob. Mr White argues that the Family Court's decision is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the COCA.

The appeal court first considered the principles governing an appeal against a costs order, noting that such appeals are discretionary and require the appellant to show the lower court acted on a wrong principle, failed to consider relevant matters, factored in irrelevant matters, or was plainly wrong. The court also highlighted the paramount consideration in care of children matters is the welfare and best interests of the child, as per s 4(1) of the COCA.

After examining the Family Court's reasoning, the appeal court found no procedural error or substantive injustice in the decision to award costs. The Family Court had considered the interests of the child, the conduct of the parties, and the financial means of the appellant. However, the appeal court concluded that the Family Court erred in awarding costs exceeding the actual costs incurred and failed to articulate reasons for increased or indemnity costs. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of the incorrect principle applied in the quantum of the costs award. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for rehearing and determining the quantum of costs, including whether increased or indemnity costs should be awarded.

Orders