Clayton v Clayton

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2014-463-000112 [2015] NZHC 1392

IN THE MATTER OF
the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and

the Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN

MELANIE ANN CLAYTON Cross-appellant

AND

MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

19 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J [Re: Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 19 June 2015 at 3.30 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………..

CLAYTON v CLAYTON (NO 2) [2015] NZHC 1392 [19 June 2015]

[1] In my decision delivered on 24 March 2015 I held that, as a matter of law, the statutory scheme for final maintenance orders does not preclude a final maintenance order making an allowance for legal expenses in relation to ongoing litigation between the parties. As a result, this ground of Mr Clayton’s appeal against a final maintenance order requiring him to pay $10,000 per month towards Mrs Clayton’s
legal and accounting fees failed.1 Mrs Clayton seeks costs on that decision.

[2] Costs would ordinarily follow the event. In the usual course, Mrs Clayton would be entitled to costs on a 2B basis. Mr Clayton resists costs on the ground that since June 2014 he has paid a total of $309,019 by way of maintenance ($110,000), court costs ($129,019) and an interim distribution of relationship property ($70,000). In these circumstances he contends that a further award is inappropriate.

[3] The provision for legal costs in the maintenance order was made in order to equip Mrs Clayton to resolve the complex relationship property litigation. The fact that she receives maintenance payments specifically for the purpose of meeting legal costs would be a factor to take into account in deciding whether there should be a departure from the rule of awarding costs to the successful party in the context of those proceedings. However, the current application concerns the maintenance proceedings. In these proceedings it is not appropriate to take into account the amount that Mr Clayton has paid by way of maintenance or by way of court costs in the relationship property proceedings. The litigation is to be treated on a normal stand-alone basis that attracts costs following the event.

[4] There are to be costs in Mrs Clayton’s favour on a 2B basis. I do not, however, accept the reasons advanced for the higher costs claimed in Ms Hosking’s memoranda. The costs are to be as per the relevant section of Schedule A attached to
Tompkins Wake’s memorandum dated 12 May 2015.

P Courtney J

1 Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550. Other grounds of appeal were determined following a later hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Clayton v Clayton, the High Court of New Zealand addressed an appeal concerning a final maintenance order made under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Melanie Ann Clayton, the cross-appellant, sought costs from Mark Arnold Clayton, the respondent, following a decision that a final maintenance order could include an allowance for legal expenses related to ongoing litigation between the parties. The court was tasked with determining whether costs should be awarded to Melanie based on the outcome of this specific maintenance proceeding, separate from the broader relationship property litigation.

The central legal issue was whether the costs incurred in the maintenance proceedings should be awarded to Melanie based on the outcome of that specific litigation. The court examined the principle that costs generally follow the event, with the successful party typically being awarded costs. However, the respondent argued that since he had already paid substantial sums towards maintenance, court costs, and an interim distribution of relationship property, additional costs should not be awarded. The court had to balance the principle of costs following the event with the respondent's argument regarding the amounts already paid in other contexts.

The court ruled that the maintenance proceedings should be treated as a stand-alone litigation, separate from the broader relationship property litigation. It found that the payment of maintenance and other costs in the relationship property proceedings should not influence the decision on costs in the maintenance proceeding. Consequently, the court awarded costs to Melanie on a 2B basis, but reduced the amount claimed based on the detailed costs outlined in the memorandum of Tompkins Wake dated 12 May 2015.

This decision clarified that while the respondent had made significant payments in other proceedings, the costs in the maintenance proceeding should be determined independently, adhering to the principle that costs follow the event. The court's judgment provided clarity on the treatment of costs in complex litigation involving multiple proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established