A woman who claimed she was defamed by her former partner’s “vicious rumours” fought him for spousal maintenance of $1345 per week more than two years after they split up. 

The woman argued she needed the money to support her studies after claiming she was forced to leave the community they lived in because of the rumours and that she had to abandon an established career to start a new one. 

After an initial Family Court hearing, she was granted interim weekly maintenance payments of $1345 for six months. 

The woman then sought via a second application to the court to have the payments extended. 

In a decision published this week from a hearing last year, Judge Kevin Muir ordered that the man, named Mr Jones*, continue interim payments for two more months, but not the extra six months his ex, Ms Thomas*, had sought. 

The judge was not convinced the vocation she had chosen to re-train in would advance her financial security. She had not explained why litigation to seek continued support from her ex-partner was preferable to her gaining work. 

Interim maintenance can be ordered to cover an ex’s reasonable needs, until the Family Court makes a decision about ongoing maintenance. 

The question of whether Jones should be finally responsible for spousal maintenance was to be resolved at a substantive hearing. 

Court officials were unable to tell NZME whether that hearing had occurred because of the nature of Family Court proceedings. 

According to the decision, the conflict between the couple, who had been together for at least four years and had no children together, escalated to each of them hurling vicious accusations at the other before they ended up in court and the spousal maintenance order was made. 

Judge Muir said in his judgment he was satisfied Thomas could find a means to support herself within a reasonable timeframe, but the shock of an immediate end to maintenance should be avoided. 

The couple agreed on when their relationship ended in 2019, but not when it began. 

It was either early in 2014 or in July 2015 when Thomas and her son moved into Jones’ house on land that had been in his family for generations. 

The application for interim spousal maintenance was filed about two and a half years after they separated. 

Judge Muir said in determining the applicant’s “reasonable needs”, the broad tenor of Thomas’ evidence was that she had “all but established a career” in the area where she lived with Jones but she had abandoned that to enter into a relationship with him. 

She claimed to have focused on helping with the care of his child and on contributions to their domestic life, but this was disputed by Jones. 

Judge Muir said it was “common ground” that their lifestyle was maintained by Jones as he was the source of finances while they were together, even though the finances were comparatively modest. 

The woman in the partnership claimed she was defamed by her ex after he spread rumours about alleged drug use. Photo / 123rf 

During the time they were together, they travelled overseas and Jones supported Thomas in a small business that was pursued for a year or two and allowed her to develop skills in a new sector. 

Judge Muir said the couple were divided over the cause of the end of their relationship. He accused her of becoming addicted to drugs; she accused him of being unfaithful and spreading “vicious and untrue rumours” about her. 

She claimed he had significant influence in the district and she was forced to abandon the area as her home and any attempts to continue to find work in the area. 

Thomas said the stress and anxiety brought on by the circumstances of the separation kept her out of the workforce for a considerable period. She moved away and began studying and then filed her application for interim maintenance. 

Judge Muir accepted she was living at “something approaching a subsistence level” before the maintenance ruling. 

He said Jones accepted after the hearing that she needed support for at least a year and offered $28,000 which amounted to $538 per week. 

But it was found that wasn’t enough for Thomas to maintain a comfortable lifestyle in a metropolitan centre. 

The court did, however, weigh up her decision to embark on requalification rather than find a job in a city that offered more varied opportunities. 

Judge Muir said there was “no real evidence” the course she had chosen was vocationally appropriate”, in that her income was unlikely to be significantly enhanced compared with what she might otherwise earn in established fields like the one she had worked in previously. 

He said it was appropriate Jones continue to pay maintenance for a short time beyond the initial period. If Thomas succeeded at the final hearing, she would receive an award of past maintenance which would compensate her for any hardship in the meantime. 

Judge Muir said if Jones was ultimately successful, questions existed over how he might recover any payments made to Thomas. 

*Names have been changed in line with statutory suppression orders of the Family Court. 

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail. 

This article was originally published on the NZ Herald here.