5 Mar 2020
The correct test for s39(2) is whether there is a clear indication that one or both parties no longer wish to cohabit and whether the parties have been physically separated for two years; deprivation of access to home or finances by safety/protection orders does not negate a state of 'living apart', therefore the Family Court's dissolution was correctly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Jul 2009
The Authority applied the correct legal test: a married couple are not 'living apart' for benefit purposes where they remain emotionally and matrimonially committed despite physical separation; the overpayment was not caused by Ministry error but by the appellant's failure to notify her marriage, so s 86(9A) did not preclude recovery; the High Court will not overturn credibility findings absent legal error.
1 May 1998
Because the appellant and the deceased were living apart at the time of death and the deceased was not financially contributing to the appellant's welfare, and the separation was not principally due to health, imprisonment, or employment, the appellant did not satisfy the statutory definition of 'spouse' in section 3 and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Jun 1996
The parties were living apart at the time of the deceased's death and the review officer was entitled to find there was no proven financial contribution by the deceased to the appellant; therefore under the statutory definition of 'spouse' the appellant was excluded and not entitled to the survivor's grant.
10 May 1996
Appellant failed to discharge the onus on the balance of probabilities that she and the deceased were not "living apart"; the undisputed facts that she received a Domestic Purposes Benefit and the deceased made no financial contributions, together with the tenuous and recent evidence of a possible reconciliation, establish that the parties were living apart and therefore the appellant was not a spouse under s.3 of the Act.