New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Property division

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2023

ZHOU v LASSNIG [2023] NZHC 714

Citation

[2023] NZHC 714
Court

High Court

Stay was granted but only on terms because the balance of convenience favored allowing the respondent to seek sale of the Jack Barry Road property and to be paid from its net proceeds an on-account sum ($406,000) plus his $290,000 capital contribution, with remaining proceeds held in solicitor's trust pending appeal; this preserves the effectiveness of any eventual appellate order while mitigating the respondent's prejudice.
14 Jun 2022

HAYES v MACAULEY [2022] NZHC 1386

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1386
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under s 339(1)(c) to order the applicant to purchase the respondent's half-share where co-ownership is untenable and the respondent has ceased contribution and engagement; applying s 342 factors the applicant's extensive financial contributions, ongoing outgoings payment, and substantial renovation and maintenance (including sweat equity) offset the respondent's larger initial capital contribution so the Court ordered purchase of respondent's half-share at market value with specified valuation process and settlement adjustments.
19 Feb 2021

FARQUHARSON v FARQUHARSON [2021] NZHC 222

Citation

[2021] NZHC 222
Court

High Court

Deceased breached his moral duty to his only son by making no testamentary provision; having regard to prior separation and property division, claimant's modest financial position, exclusion of executor's personal legal costs from estate liabilities and updated valuation of estate at $472,147.16, the minimum necessary to repair the breach was an aggregate award of $216,000 (cash $200,000 plus vehicle $13,500 and equipment $2,500), representing approximately 46% of the estate.
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.
24 Jun 2020

STILES v STILES [2020] NZHC 1437

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1437
Court

High Court

Court ordered a partial award of costs to the first respondent at one half of the 2B scale, allowed specific claimed items after item-by-item assessment (allowing item 10, disallowing item 13, agreeing hearing length 1.5 days) and, as an exception justified by the appeal's diversity of issues and conduct, allowed an award for second counsel, resulting in a total award of $10,336.75.
24 Oct 2018

DAVID CHARLES BOSKETT v WILMA TANGDOL BOSKETT [2018] NZHC 2758

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2758
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence was refused because the Waller v Hider test was not met (no real question of law, only a dispute over facts and a relatively small amount), further evidence offered was reasonably available to the Family Court and should not be admitted on appeal, and there was no basis to grant the interim orders sought; costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis.
28 Sept 2018

BILLINGTON v MORTON [2018] NZHC 2530

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2530
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: the settlement did not demonstrate the Family Court's judgment was wrong or undermine its merits assessment, and the Family Court legitimately exercised its discretion to award a costs uplift because the appellant pursued largely unmeritorious positions and conducted the case in a manner justifying increased costs; appeal dismissed and uplift of costs to $50,000 upheld.
19 Aug 2014

S v A [2014] NZHC 1962

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1962
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because there was no realistic risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory: respondent gave instructions not to enforce the judgment pending appeal and offered protective measures (solicitor's trust account), the disputed sums were modest, and the appellant did not demonstrate inability to meet the modest additional commitment; leave to reapply was reserved if enforcement is initiated.
16 May 2014

BLD v ALD [2014] NZHC 1030

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1030
Court

High Court

The application to recall the 26 March 2014 judgment is dismissed because the circumstances do not meet the Horowhenua County v Nash categories permitting recall; there was no intervening law, no failure by counsel to cite relevant authorities, and no other very special reason warranting revisiting the decision.
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.