New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Post-separation contributions

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2021

GOLDSTONE v GOLDSTONE AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF REECE CLIVE GOLDSTONE [2021] NZCA 664

Citation

[2021] NZCA 664
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that s119(3) requires an evaluative assessment of fairness capable of objective review; the High Court erred in concluding the Family Court would lack jurisdiction under s9(4) PRA and in failing to conduct a fresh holistic assessment in light of post‑separation payments, the deceased's estate position, the children's interests and newly adduced evidence; on fresh assessment fairness required vesting the property as tenants in common in equal shares in Sharon (as administrator of Reece's estate) and Andrea.
26 Jun 2020

HEWSON v DEANS [2020] NZHC 1465

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1465
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed in part: the High Court held a proportion of the unpaid overseas income tax was relationship debt to the extent that income was shown to have been paid into relationship accounts (tax attributable to 64% of 2016 income and 48% of 2017 income — relationship debt $25,323.64); the unequal 60/40 division of the family home was unjustified and the home is to be shared equally; Family Court findings on student loan repayments, lump sum child support, post-separation compensation and vehicle valuation were upheld except as to tax classification and s13 division.
18 Mar 2020

ZHAO v HE [2020] NZHC 550

Citation

[2020] NZHC 550
Court

High Court

Judge Maude's credibility findings and the available documentary and transactional evidence justified treating the NZD 1,200,000 as the appellant's asset (characterised as a loan to his sister) on the balance of probabilities; the finding of a separate NZD 400,000 asset lacked evidential foundation and was erroneous; no post-separation credit was ordered because the funds used to discharge the mortgage were found to be the appellant's relationship property.
1 Aug 2019

MCMANAWAY v CAFFELL [2019] NZCA 351

Citation

[2019] NZCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not bona fide and seriously arguable: the Cando shares were relationship property (not caught by the s 21 agreement), valuation at hearing with adjustment for post-separation contributions was within judicial discretion, and the allocation for post-separation contributions is a factual question not suitable for further appellate review; finality and prompt resolution outweigh further appeal.
21 Dec 2016

YATES v BEECROFT & Anor [2016] NZHC 3183

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3183
Court

High Court

High Court found respondent entitled to s18B compensation for use of her half share of SHL from separation to hearing but Family Court's methodology (12% applied to end-of-period valuation across full period) was unjustified; quashed $162,000 award and substituted a reassessed award of $95,533.54 based on (1) averaged capital value interest, (2) interest on half share of sale proceeds for period after sale, and (3) adjustment for passive income; awarded occupational rent $6,581.44 to respondent for specified period; refused appellant's request to inspect the boat and ordered boat sold with pr…
11 Aug 2016

RONAYNE v COOMBES [2016] NZCA 393

Citation

[2016] NZCA 393
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file the appeal was granted; appeal dismissed. Core holdings: trust-owned family home was not relationship property so appellant was not entitled to occupation rent under s18B or s44C; trial judge did not err in declining an s18B adjustment for post-separation joint account transactions given appellant's post-separation maintenance obligations and the discretionary broad-brush exercise; s15 economic disparity award of $65,000 was supported by evidence and causation and is upheld; costs awarded to respondent on a standard appeal band A basis with usual disbursements.
4 Jul 2016

THALLER v TROTTER [2016] NZHC 1508

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1508
Court

High Court

The Epsom property was introduced into the partnership capital and partners held equal shares in partnership assets; Mr Trotter nominated the trustees as purchasers of Oakdale to defeat Mr Thaller's imminent rights under the Act and the disposition is therefore set aside under s44 by ordering transfer of Oakdale to Mr Thaller and Mr Trotter as tenants in common in equal shares subject to a debt back to the trustees; the trust debt to Mr Trotter of $223,681 included $120,000 as his separate property and the balance is relationship property; no extraordinary circumstances justified unequal shar…
29 May 2013

AB v BC [2013] NZHC 1247

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1247
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were not capable of bona fide and serious argument: the Cousins debt had been repaid from relationship property so no deduction was required; a separation date valuation was justified given post-separation events and unfairness to the wife; the wife's expert valuation using capitalisation of earnings was properly preferred and no error shown; the disposition of company assets legitimately removed value from the share pool; and claims for post-separation compensation and occupational rent were unsupported by reliable evidence or defeated…
22 Sept 2011

BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011

Citation

SC 9/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and to cross-appeal (with an extension of time) and confirmed that the principal contested legal issue concerned valuation timing and arithmetic adjustments; the Court limited the remaining dispute largely to calculation and directed the parties to prepare and attempt to agree valuations and divisions on both separation and hearing date bases, while noting the Court of Appeal's s 14(2)(c) assessment of equal sharing stands for present purposes.
16 Apr 2010

KONI V KONI HC AK CIV-2009-404-007772

Citation

openlaw-2517493e_86c0_43ad_8f43_e78503671524.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that, balancing the risk of serious injustice against the need for finality and the risk of re-litigation, leave to adduce further evidence was warranted in respect of the Redpath Trust and Dorchester share documentation concerning the Waterloo Quadrant apartment, specified post-separation contribution items ([37](h),(i),(j)), and a fresh valuation of the boat; the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Family Court for rehearing on those issues, with specific directions for inspection and costs allocation on the leave application.