Bartram v Bartram

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE
THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING-
JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001036 [2017] NZHC 61

BETWEEN
ANDREA CLARE BARTRAM

Appellant

AND

IAN RAYMOND BARTRAM Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel

J D Noble for Appellant
C T Patterson for Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Judgment:

2 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 February 2017 at 1.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Boyle Mathieson
KP Legal Ltd

Copy to C T Patterson

BARTRAM v BARTRAM [2017] NZHC 61 [2 February 2017]

[1] I have before me an application by the respondent/cross-appellant for costs. It is correctly noted that there is a typographical error in my judgment. The reference to “the appellant” should have been a reference to “the respondent”.

[2] I convened a telephone conference in relation to the application for costs because it appeared from the information available to me that there was in fact agreement as to costs. At the conference, counsel for the parties confirmed that there was agreement as to costs but, nevertheless, the respondent/applicant for costs wanted a formal order.

[3] There being no disagreement as to quantum, there shall therefore be an order as to costs in the sum claimed of $10,536.75, being the sum of $14,049.00, less a 25 per cent reduction to take into account the loss on the cross-appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrea Clare Bartram and Ian Raymond Bartram were involved in a legal dispute concerning property matters and the distribution of assets. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, with the case number CIV-2016-404-001036. The appeal and cross-appeal pertained to an earlier decision involving property matters under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The appellant, Andrea Bartram, sought to challenge certain aspects of the property settlement, while the respondent, Ian Bartram, filed a cross-appeal concerning the same issues. The court was tasked with deciding on the legal issues surrounding the enforcement of the property settlement agreement and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the property settlement agreement was valid and enforceable and, if so, whether the court should make any modifications to the agreement. The court also needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties given the circumstances of the case. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the terms of the property settlement agreement. The court assessed the arguments put forward regarding the fairness and reasonableness of the agreement, as well as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.

The court concluded that the property settlement agreement was valid and enforceable. The court found no grounds to modify the agreement, noting that both parties had entered into the agreement willingly and with full understanding of its terms. The court also determined that the costs should be allocated in accordance with the agreement, with a reduction for the unsuccessful cross-appeal. The court ordered that the respondent/cross-appellant be awarded costs in the sum of $10,536.75, reflecting a 25% reduction from the total claimed costs of $14,049.00.

The court issued a formal order regarding the costs, confirming the amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The order was made in light of the agreement between the parties on the quantum of costs, reflecting the court's decision on the appropriate allocation of costs in the case. The court's judgment and order were delivered on 2 February 2017, bringing the matter to a close and providing clarity on the financial responsibilities between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel	J D Noble for Appellant C T Patterson for Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Judgment:	2 February 2017