24 Aug 2023
Extension of time refused because the delay (88 days) was significant and not adequately explained, the proposed appeal was at best arguable but not strongly meritorious, and extension would cause prejudice and hardship to the respondent; on balance the interests of justice did not justify granting leave to appeal out of time.
31 Mar 2023
The Agreement was void under s21F because the parties did not obtain the independent legal advice nor lawyer witnessing/certification required; s21H could not validate the Agreement because non‑compliance materially prejudiced AJ given her vulnerability and the substantive effect of the Agreement; even if valid it would have been set aside under s21J for serious injustice as the Agreement became unreasonable over time; accordingly the family home and other relationship property are to be divided equally under the PRA and AJ's claim for occupation rent and WL's constructive trust/knowing recei…
30 Nov 2022
The applicant failed to prove the undertaking's purpose was limited to facilitating a completed settlement or that that purpose has been frustrated; because the respondent's competing relationship property claim to the trust assets and sale proceeds remains live and contested, the undertaking still serves to preserve the status quo and the solicitors cannot be discharged; consequently the application to release the undertaking and authorise payment was declined.
31 Mar 2020
No valid contracting out agreement was proved; the Ranui property was acquired after the relationship began and was relationship property under s 8(1)(ee) because it was acquired for the common use of the couple; the Family Court's refusal to determine s 18B compensation for post-separation interest and outgoings pending rental evidence was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration; the Sovereign policy value at near separation of $51,729.55 was adopted and split equally.
31 Oct 2019
Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the First Agreement operated to contract out of s9A(1) and s9A(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; the Family Court did not err in that finding. However the Family Court erred in its interpretation of s9A(1) to the extent it dismissed as a matter of law that retained earnings/underpaid remuneration could amount to an application of relationship property; the High Court allowed the appeal on the classification point and remitted the matter for the Family Court to assess whether retained earnings should be classified as relationship property and whether giving ef…
4 Jul 2019
The caveator established a reasonably arguable case that the will executed 22 June 2018 was made in contemplation of marriage (supported by a 24 June text message and the short interval to the 4 August marriage), therefore the court discharged the order nisi and directed the administration application to proceed in solemn form for full inquiry rather than granting absolute letters.
15 Apr 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the Family Court judge properly exercised her discretion under s 24: the appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the long delay, did not establish a basic evidential foundation or prima facie merit with necessary corroboration, the further evidence was not fresh and could have been adduced earlier, and granting leave would cause prejudice to the respondent; no bias was established.
1 Dec 2017
Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether a property agreement entered into by de facto partners before 1 August 2001 binds the parties as to property acquired after they subsequently marry is of public importance, there exists conflicting High Court authority on the point, and the issue is not resolved by Moor v Marston; accordingly the matter is suitable for a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.
17 Jul 2017
The High Court upheld the Family Court: although Ms Kay received adequate independent legal advice within s21F, the contracting out agreement was set aside under s21J because giving effect to it would cause serious injustice given the agreement's opaque terms, the length and dynamics of the relationship, and the resultant overwhelming disparity; accordingly the court ordered equal division of relationship property under s25 and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.
4 Dec 2012
Having weighed the assignee's report, the applicant's cooperation, minimal creditors, the specific business opportunity and the inadequacy of s 149 in practice, the Court found good cause for an early discharge by a slim margin and ordered discharge subject to the condition that the Official Assignee's costs and disbursements of $8,392.87 be paid or an arrangement acceptable to the Assignee be reached and evidenced by written consent before the order is released from Court.