New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

De facto relationship

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2023

GERRING-GUNN v GUNN [2023] NZHC 2603

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2603
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the Family Court did not err on the substantive issues: the 2011 agreement complied with requirements, independent legal advice was given and not demonstrably inadequate, the strong presumption of equal sharing was not rebutted, and the evidence did not establish a continuing de facto relationship after dissolution; however the Family Court erred in finding exceptional circumstances under the Legal Services Act s45 to order costs against an aided person, so the appeal is allowed only on liability for costs with a declaration that but-for s45 the appellant would have b…
20 Jun 2023

FIONA MARGARET MEAD v LILACH PAUL [2023] NZSC 70

Citation

[2023] NZFLR 75
Court

Supreme Court

Majority (3–2) held a three‑person triangular relationship is not itself a qualifying de facto relationship under the PRA because the statutory definition requires a relationship between two persons, but a triangular relationship can be subdivided into dyadic qualifying relationships where each pair satisfies s 2D indicia; exclusivity is not required and ss 52A/52B demonstrate Parliament contemplated contemporaneous qualifying relationships, so the Family Court has jurisdiction to determine property orders as between qualifying pairs.
26 Jul 2022

LYU v LU [2022] NZHC 1796

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1796
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to show the de facto relationship commenced before August/September 2016 and thus it was of short duration; he failed to establish on the evidence a reasonably arguable case of substantial contributions or that failure to order would cause serious injustice under s14A; statutory provisions relied on (ss44A/44B/44C, s8(1)(d), s17) did not establish a proprietary interest in trust‑held land to sustain the notice of claim; accordingly there was no reasonably arguable interest and the notice of claim was removed and costs awarded to the respondent.
8 Apr 2022

RENNIE v BAKER [2022] NZHC 721

Citation

[2022] NZHC 721
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce further evidence refused because the proposed material was not fresh and was often hearsay or obtainable earlier; leave to bring a second appeal refused because the grounds were factual, challenged credibility findings and common residence assessments that were open to the Courts, and did not raise questions of law or public or private importance sufficient to justify a second appeal.
30 Nov 2021

RENNIE v BAKER [2021] NZHC 3245

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3245
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the parties were found to have had two short de facto relationships (late Oct/Nov 2014–end Feb 2015 and Dec 2015–Feb 2016) but the principal property at [withheld] was separate as it was acquired by the respondent before the qualifying de facto relationship and not in contemplation of, nor intended for, common use; the applicant did not make substantial contributions in the short qualifying periods and failure to order division of residual assets would not result in serious injustice.
21 May 2021

HARE v AITCHISON [2021] NZHC 1148

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1148
Court

High Court

Applicant established a good arguable case of a de facto relationship giving her priority to letters of administration, there are identifiable estate assets, and there is a real risk of dissipation if relief is not granted without notice; accordingly a freezing order was justified and granted subject to sealing, service, leave to apply to set aside, and a case management conference.
6 May 2020

KWOK v RAINEY [2020] NZHC 923

Citation

[2020] NZHC 923
Court

High Court

The Court found the de facto relationship commenced 1 March 2009; the transfer of the section into the David Rainey Family Trust in April 2011 was made with the intention or for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's prospective relationship property rights and therefore s44 applies; the Trust could not be relied on to defeat the claim and the family home was treated as relationship property subject to equal sharing; Gascoigne Wicks negligently advised the defendant and that negligence caused the defendant's loss because proper advice would likely have led the defendant to end the relations…
31 Mar 2020

PAUL v MEAD [2020] NZHC 666

Citation

[2020] NZFLR 1042
Court

High Court

The Family Court does not have jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 to determine property rights of three persons in a polyamorous relationship, nor to do so by dividing the polyamorous relationship into dyadic parts, because the Act's definitions and scheme are premised on two‑person 'couple' relationships and ss 52A/52B do not expand the Act to multi‑partner relationships; equitable remedies remain available.
20 Dec 2019

Ngae v Koh [2019] NZHC 3489

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3489
Court

High Court

Costs were ordered to lie where they fall because the appellants achieved only partial and modified success (resulting trust limited to parental contributions), had pursued a misconceived claim that the entire Property was held on trust and abandoned that position, produced mixed results on other property issues, and the respondent's rejection of settlement offers was not shown to be unreasonable at the time given uncertainty about property value.
30 Sept 2019

TN v AK [2019] NZHC 2466

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2466
Court

High Court

The Court held that the $335,000 advanced by the Ns gave rise to a resulting trust such that TN and AK jointly hold a 35.8% beneficial interest in the Property for the second appellant; $57,000 of AK's savings at separation is relationship property and $24,000 remains her separate property; excluding the Ns' share and assessing contributions globally the net relationship property is to be divided 60% to AK and 40% to TN; the Family Court's occupation rent order was quashed and interest at 5% p.a. awarded on any final sum due to AK from commencement of Family Court proceedings to date of judgm…