A domestic violence victim who was ordered to pay her abuser's court costs then had some success on appeal, but is now faced with chasing him to pay his share of the bill.
The woman said her ex-partner has missed the payment deadline and owed her nearly $6500 by court order - but the court does not chase this, so she was faced with submitting further legal proceedings to force him to stump up.
Advocates for survivors warn court costs are having a chilling effect on women seeking justice.
After she left her partner, the Family Court found Laura, not her real name, had been subjected to domestic violence - including surveillance and stalking - but declined her application for a protection order after determining she was not in danger of future threats.
She appealed this decision in the High Court, but was unsuccessful and she was ordered to pay more than $13,000 of her ex-partner's court costs.
Laura paid this after being chased by debt collectors and securing a private loan, then took the case to the Court of Appeal, which reversed some costs - it is money her ex-partner has to pay her back, except he has not.
"It's a huge sum of money, it's a life-changing sum of money," Laura said of the nearly $6500.
"If I want to enforce it, I can go back to the court and get help doing that but that has to come from me, not the court."
It has been three months since the Court of Appeal released its judgement and although Laura needs the money, she said she does not want to return to court.
"I do have to weigh up my psychological well-being with more litigation and the loss that I would get from passing it over to somebody to recover it and the cost involved in recovering it, not just for representation but filling fees. I think any survivor will know the thought of going back to court is so daunting that you couldn't pay me to do it."
When Laura appealed to the High Court, Justice Venning referred to case law that recognised a parent should not be put off seeking a protection order in the Family Court.
But he said an applicant who chooses to appeal a Family Court decision in a higher court is in a different position.
The Backbone Collective is an organisation that advocates for survivors of domestic abuse and how the Family Court responds to their situations.
Co-founder Deborah McKenzie said it was not unusual for women survivors to be left with a bill for their abuser's court costs and that had a chilling effect on others seeking protection orders.
"Women tell us that the Family Court continues to minimise the violence and abuse or it just outright accuses them of lying about the danger they and their children are in. It's in this context that victim survivors might be ordered to pay the court costs of the person who abused them."
She said a woman can be left with high levels of debt when she tried to get a protection order and was unsuccessful.
"Trying to use Family Court processes to get legal protection is very costly and it's often unsuccessful. Our research has shown that women are forced into really high levels of debt, thousands and thousands of dollars, in their attempts to get protection."
Ministry of Justice data showed that of those who sought a protection order, 90 percent were women and around two-thirds of applications were granted.
Carrie Leonetti, the co-director for the New Zealand Centre for Human Rights Law, Practice, and Policy at the University of Auckland, has been researching family law here for six years and said Laura's case highlighted systemic problems.
"It is shocking to me that after years of inflicting family violence on her, somehow she leaves court with no protection order and having to pay at least part of his lawyers' fees. That is absolutely inconsistent with all of the principles of the Family Violence Act."
Leonetti also said the language of the Court of Appeal judgement, which referred to "allegations and counter-allegations of inappropriate behaviour" and the "zeal and detail" the pair engaged in litigation, minimised Laura's allegations of domestic violence.
"I think when you see courts describing family violence as incidents and relationship breakdown and inappropriate behaviour, that is the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do under the Family Violence Act," she said.
"These are allegations of family violence, and maybe they occurred or maybe they didn't that is for the court to determine. But I think it's really important to use accurate, complete language in describing these things."
Meanwhile, Laura said she would support a change where a third party was employed to chase ex-partners to pay their share of court-ordered costs.
"I think if there was a mechanism whereby a third party or somebody that is not the victim could do it, that would be great obviously I would take that up."
