NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
PLEASE SEE https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing- judgments/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2020-404-1733
[2021] NZHC 1977
BETWEEN DN
Appellant
AND
AN
Respondent
Judgment:
(On the papers)
3 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF BREWER J
(Costs)
This judgment was delivered by me on 3 August 2021 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Inder Lynch (Manukau) for Appellant Urlich Milne (Auckland) for Respondent
DN v AN [2021] NZHC 1977 [3 August 2021]
Introduction
[1] DN and AN are the separated parents (father and mother, respectively) of two children. On 7 August 2020, Judge K Muir in the Family Court made a final parenting order providing that AN should have the day-to-day care of the children, and DN should have specified regular contact.1 DN appealed that decision to this Court, seeking a shared care arrangement.
[2] I considered that, in light of the history of the discord between DN and AN, Judge Muir was entitled to form an adverse view of DN and predict the likelihood of continued conflict between the parents.2 I considered that the Judge adequately considered the children’s views. I did not consider that the Judge erred, and dismissed the appeal.
[3] AN now seeks 2B costs. DN has not filed anything in response. By joint memorandum dated 14 October 2020, the parties agreed that the case falls under category 2. I agree that band B is likewise appropriate. This was a case where a normal amount of time spent on the steps was appropriate.
The costs schedule
[4]AN seeks costs for the following steps:
Step
Step Number
Days
Total
Commencement of response to appeal
53
0.5
$1,195
Memorandum for first or subsequent case management conference
11
0.4
$956
Appearance at case management conference
13
0.3
$717
Preparation of written submissions3
56
1.5
$3,585
Appearance at hearing
57
0.5
$1,195
Overall Total:
2.9
$6,931
1 DN v AN [2020] NZFC 5787 at [97].
3 This step would be three days according to the schedule. I take it AN only spent 1.5 days on this step, and hence – appropriately – claims their actual time.
[5] These figures are incorrect. The days should add to 3.2, and the total should come to $7,648.
[6]Nonetheless, the steps claimed are orthodox. I will award the correct sum.
Result
[7]I award AN costs on a 2B scale basis, which totals $7,648.
Brewer J
- AGLC
- DN v An [2021] NZHC 1977
- Case
- [2021] NZHC 1977
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Family Court judge erred in making the initial parenting order and in considering the children's views. The court found that the Family Court judge was entitled to form an adverse view of DN and to predict continued conflict between the parents, given the history of discord between them. The court also found that the Family Court judge had adequately considered the children's views. As such, the appeal was dismissed.
The court awarded costs to AN on a 2B scale basis, as agreed by the parties. The court noted that the costs schedule provided by AN contained errors, but that the steps claimed were orthodox. The court corrected the errors and awarded the correct sum of $7,648.
The final orders of the court were that DN's appeal was dismissed and that AN was awarded costs on a 2B scale basis, totalling $7,648.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.