New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Classification of relationship vs separate property

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2018

WINDERS v WINDERS [2018] NZHC 860

Citation

[2018] NZHC 860
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal because the statutory threshold for setting aside the s 21 agreement was not met: the parties clearly intended Ngake Street to remain separate property, there was no procedural unfairness, mere disparity of outcome and passive capital gain do not constitute 'serious injustice', and therefore the Family Court erred in setting aside the agreement; the s 21 agreement is reinstated and sale proceeds are to be dealt with according to its terms with s 18B adjustments unaffected.
29 Sept 2017

M v H [2017] NZHC 2385

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 751
Court

High Court

The Deed was not made in contemplation of marriage for s21(1) MPA purposes (narrow test applied), but it is a pre-1 August 2001 de facto partners' agreement to which s21P/21R apply and therefore survived the parties' subsequent marriage; on construction of the Deed and the factual matrix, the contested bank accounts are Mr H's separate property as business income/profits under clause 1 of Schedule B.
22 Jun 2016

ROBERTS v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 1363

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1363
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: s44 did not apply because the disposition to the husband did not defeat any claim or right Ms Roberts had under the Act (she had no claim against the settlor trustees) and the distribution was received in good faith; s9A(2) did not apply because the $1,800,000 crystallised as the husband's separate property on distribution and there was no subsequent increase in value attributable to the wife that would convert it to relationship property.
4 Aug 2015

MARTIN v MARTIN [2015] NZHC 1823

Citation

(2015) 30 FRNZ 568
Court

High Court

On the evidence the monies advanced by Mrs Martin in 1991 were provided without conditions and were a contribution to the relationship; the farm acquired in 1992 is relationship property under s 8(1)(e) (and alternatively under s 8(1)(ee) as acquired for common use/benefit); inherited funds had been so intermingled with farm income that property acquired with them (the campervan) lost separate status; bank account balances and assets acquired with farm income are relationship property; interest on the monetary adjustment is to run from six months after separation (31 October 2010).
12 Nov 2013

T v G [2013] NZHC 2976

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2976
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's award of $40,000 under s 18B for substantial post‑separation childcare contributions and $40,000 under s 44C for relationship shares transferred to the family trust; placed the onus on Mr T to prove separate property (he failed to do so for most disputed shares and the Bendigo account), corrected that the David Jones shares are Mr T's separate property, held the Family Court had jurisdiction under s 33(4) to award interest on the $285,000 and remitted that issue for further inquiry, and held judgment interest above $3,000 should be five percent per ann…

New Zealand Case Law

WINDERS v WINDERS [2018] NZHC 860

M v H [2017] NZHC 2385

ROBERTS v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 1363

MARTIN v MARTIN [2015] NZHC 1823

T v G [2013] NZHC 2976