New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contributions

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2019

FRANKLYN v GREEN [2019] NZHC 2632

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2632
Court

High Court

The Court preferred the plaintiff's credible evidence, found the handwritten agreement was forged or unproven, found the defendant's contribution claims uncorroborated and insufficient to establish the requisite expectation or reliance for an equitable proprietary interest; therefore the defendant has no interest in the proceeds and the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, is entitled to the net proceeds less reasonable fees.
14 Aug 2013

PIERCE v SPARGO [2013] NZHC 2055

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2055
Court

High Court

Although Pierce was registered as a joint proprietor, the evidence established an enforceable shared understanding that Ian and Helen would take the existing dwelling for $100,000 and Pierce and Jennifer would be responsible for acquiring and financing the vacant lot and building 24A. Ian and Helen paid substantially more than they contracted to and by the balance of probabilities Pierce and Jennifer hold no lawful interest in 24 Hiwi Crescent. Accordingly the Court declined to exercise its discretion under s 339(1)(b) to order division; the property is owned solely by Ian and Helen Spargo.
19 Dec 2012

ROSS V SMITH HC GRY CIV 2012-418-000063

Citation

openlaw-b05d035f_5ce9_4176_8fad_7eca3edac2cc.pdf
Court

High Court

The first defendant must account for the share of benefits obtained by him or his interests that should have been paid to Mr and Mrs Ross; compensation is fixed at 50% of the quantified gains of $819,852.62 (after allowing the $209,147.33 benefit to the company), i.e. 50% of $819,852.62.
20 Dec 2010

BURGESS V BEAVEN CA CA 371/2009

Citation

openlaw-6280a201_c9f0_4831_81c5_ede692b439e1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held relationship property must be valued at the date of separation using truly comparable values; on that basis the parties' financial contributions were roughly equal and the prerequisite for unequal sharing under s 14(2)(c) was not satisfied, so the Family Court's unequal division was set aside and recalculations produced an order for the respondent to pay the appellant $22,000 while retaining her post-separation proceeds from Woodbury.
3 Mar 2010

SAG V IAK HC WN CIV 2009-485-2250

Citation

openlaw-8a123a1c_c470_45c8_b402_4568f8bd7a77.pdf
Court

High Court

The correct approach under s 14A and s 18 is a global comparative assessment of monetary and non‑monetary contributions; the trial judge erred by overemphasising opening and closing asset positions and by certain factual characterisations, but the primary legal approach and credibility findings on childcare stood; an adjusted division of relationship property to reflect assessed contributions (61% to IAK, 39% to SAG) is just and accordingly the appeal is allowed and the division altered.
27 Nov 2003

NEVILLE SHAUN RICHARDSON V MARY ELIZABETH CASSIN CA CA24/03

Citation

openlaw-2862655a_005a_4c38_bc33_a63cc92a8a03.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

On the balance of probabilities the parties had an implicit common intention to share all assets equally and, applying Lankow v Rose, it would be unconscionable for the appellant to retain sole legal title to BEL; therefore respondent is entitled to a 50% share in BEL and related assets and no debt is owing by the respondent to the appellant.

New Zealand Case Law

FRANKLYN v GREEN [2019] NZHC 2632

PIERCE v SPARGO [2013] NZHC 2055

ROSS V SMITH HC GRY CIV 2012-418-000063

BURGESS V BEAVEN CA CA 371/2009

SAG V IAK HC WN CIV 2009-485-2250

NEVILLE SHAUN RICHARDSON V MARY ELIZABETH CASSIN CA CA24/03