New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Property (relationships) act 1976 s44

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2023

SUTTON v BELL [2023] NZSC 65

Citation

[2023] NZSC 65
Court

Supreme Court

S44 may be applied to dispositions made before the formal commencement of a de facto relationship where there is sufficient certainty (a clear and present intention to enter the relationship) and the disposer had knowledge that the disposition would defeat the other party's claim or rights; following Regal Castings, such knowledge permits an inference of intent to defeat; where recipient did not receive in good faith s44(4) does not bar relief; on the facts transfer to parties as tenants in common in equal shares is appropriate and the trustees' good faith defence failed.
25 Oct 2016

POTTER v HORSFALL [2016] NZCA 514

Citation

(2016) 31 FRNZ 160
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that registration of the College St property in the parties' joint names gave the appellant a claim under the PRA; the respondent could not rely on evidence that registration was done to avoid tax to deny that beneficial ownership (Potter line); the respondent transferred proceeds in circumstances where he knew the effect would be to defeat the appellant's rights under s44, so the Family Court retains power to make orders and the matter is remitted to determine remaining s44 issues.
20 Dec 2013

WILKERSON v WILKERSON [2013] NZHC 3558

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3558
Court

High Court

Because the appellant succeeded on the principal issue and obtained a substantial monetary award she was entitled to costs, but given partial success the court exercised its discretion to award costs on a 2A basis in the sum of $3,880.50.
22 Sept 2011

WEI V DU HC AK CIV-2011-404-2289

Citation

openlaw-77f03a1f_bb37_48f3_8cc2_6c94dd4630c3.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable claim to an equitable interest by constructive trust or a demonstrable s44 PRA disposition to defeat rights, contributed sums were insufficient or sourced from the joint account (which she had largely withdrawn), no adequate explanation was provided for the lapse of the first caveat, and on that basis the Court exercised its discretion under s148 to refuse leave to lodge a second caveat.

New Zealand Case Law

SUTTON v BELL [2023] NZSC 65

POTTER v HORSFALL [2016] NZCA 514

WILKERSON v WILKERSON [2013] NZHC 3558

WEI V DU HC AK CIV-2011-404-2289