Hodson v Hodson HC Napier CIV-2011-441-618 [2011] NZHC 1837 (24 November 2011)

Last Updated: 15 January 2012

NOTE: ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS

11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. PARTIES' NAMES HAVE BEEN ALTERED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

_{CIV-2011-441-618}

IN THE MATTER OF the Family Proceedings Act 1980

BETWEEN M HODSON Appellant

AND T HODSON Respondent

Hearing: 24 November 2011

Counsel: A J Davies with N J Booth for Appellant

C M Hickman for Respondent

Judgment: 24 November 2011

_{INTERIM JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS}

[1] On 16 September 2011 Judge Callinicos, sitting in the Family Court at Napier, made an interim spousal maintenance order pursuant to s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. The terms of the order were that Mr Hodson1 pay Mrs Hodson a periodic weekly amount of $770 per week. Payments were to commence on 23 September 2011, and conclude on 23 March 2012.

[2] Mr Hodson has appealed that order. He sought a stay of the Family Court

_{Judge’s order, in the High Court. That application was refused by MacKenzie J.}

1 _{With the parties’ consent, fictitious names have been used in this judgment.}

M HODSON V T HODSON HC NAP CIV-2011-441-618 24 November 2011

[3] When the substantive appeal came before me this morning, it became apparent that despite the terms of the Family Court order, and despite the fact that the application for stay had been refused, Mr Hodson has made no interim spousal maintenance payment whatever to Mrs Hodson. The arrears currently stand at

$6,930.

[4] I made clear to Mr Hodson’s counsel this morning that I was not prepared to entertain the appeal unless his client first complies with the Family Court Judge’s order. In the circumstances, I considered it necessary, to ensure that payments are duly made, that Mr Hodson pay the total amount of the Family Court Judge’s order into his solicitor’s trust account.

[5] Accordingly, I make an order requiring the appellant to pay the sum of

$20,000 into the trust account of Willis Toomey Robinson, no later than 4.00 pm on

1 December 2011. A memorandum is to be filed confirming that that has been done. Mr Davies of that firm is then to disburse those funds to Mrs Hodson in accordance with the order of the Family Court (as varied, if varied, by this Court in due course). Delivery of this Court’s final judgment on the appeal will be conditional upon that occurring. If payment is not made in accordance with this order, the appeal will be struck out, with costs in favour of the respondent.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitors:

Willis Toomey Robinson, Napier for Appellant

Souness Stone, Hastings for Respondent