New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relationship property division

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2023

ANSIN v RAMAGE [2023] NZHC 1989

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1989
Court

High Court

The Judge properly exercised s25(4) discretionary power: both parties could not afford the outgoings, the LilyLumiere funds were being drawn down and sale was necessary to prevent further deterioration of relationship property and to achieve an equitable, timely resolution; the appellant failed to show she could buy out the respondent or that sale would cause an identifiable disadvantage, therefore the sale order was justified and must stand.
25 Nov 2022

GRANT v EVERETT [2022] NZHC 3109

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3109
Court

High Court

The Court refused extension of time and special leave because the appeal was over 18 months out of time with inadequate explanation, weak prospects of success and likely prejudice to the respondent; the District Court's strike-out was upheld because the Family Court orders had vested the property in the respondent and the pleaded privacy/intrusion/human rights causes of action could not be made out on the pleaded facts (intrusion into seclusion not established, NZBORA/UDHR do not create private causes of action between individuals).
29 Jul 2022

DALTON v DALTON [2022] NZHC 1849

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1849
Court

High Court

The Court declined to grant final specific performance at this time because the distribution and transfer could affect the parties' relationship property entitlements; the appropriate course is for the parties to resolve their respective claims in the Family Court on the basis that the value of the property be brought into account between them, and therefore the High Court adjourned the application, reserved costs and directed further case management between courts.
25 Mar 2022

BRADFORD v TE HEI [2022] NZHC 575

Citation

[2022] NZHC 575
Court

High Court

Although Mr Bradford was the successful party in the High Court PLA interlocutory proceedings, the appropriate disposition on costs in all the circumstances is that each party is to bear their own costs; the PLA proceedings were inappropriate for resolution of overall relationship property entitlements which should proceed under the PRA, and the Court orders no costs payable between the parties.
21 Dec 2021

WU v CHIU [2021] NZHC 3577

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3577
Court

High Court

On the rehearing the Court upheld the Family Court's classification of the Kiltole Drive properties as relationship property because the cumulative evidence supported that the appellant controlled the accounts, treated the funds as his own and used sale proceeds for personal indebtedness; however the Court allowed the appeal in relation to the two $100,000 deposits, quashing the order requiring reimbursement because there was insufficient evidence to displace the appellant's account that the funds were repayment to a third party (Jun Luo).
9 Dec 2021

BOSWELL v KORVING [2021] NZHC 3373

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3373
Court

High Court

The appellant provided a fresh affidavit from her general practitioner with annexed medical records which disclosed sufficient medical information relevant to the relationship property proceedings, making the prior blanket order for discovery of medical records over the specified four‑year period unnecessary; accordingly the disclosure order was quashed.
2 Aug 2021

TERENCE WOOLDRIDGE v KANCHANA KUMARI [2021] NZHC 1975

Citation

[2021] NZFLR 461
Court

High Court

The Family Court finding that the marriage was not of short duration was upheld, the premarital agreement did not oust NZ law and was treated as ineffective; leave to obtain non‑party discovery and to adduce fresh immigration evidence on appeal was refused as inappropriate and not fresh or compelling; however, on a holistic assessment the combination of the appellant's substantial capital contribution (the family home), the brevity of the relationship, the parties' significant time apart and the appellant's advanced age and reduced future earning capacity amounted to extraordinary circumstanc…
22 Jul 2021

MEADS v MULDREW [2021] NZHC 1864

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1864
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual finding that the parties were in a de facto relationship and that the appellant had disposed of relationship property into TTL with the intention of defeating the respondent's claim such that s44 applied; accordingly the Family Court's order transferring 19B Cathedral Place so it could be treated as relationship property, and the compensatory orders under s20E and for occupation rent, were within jurisdiction and were confirmed on appeal.
14 Apr 2021

BOOTH v BOOTH [2021] NZCA 112

Citation

[2021] NZCA 112
Court

Court of Appeal

Recall declined because applicant did not meet the strict Horowhenua criteria: no relevant new law or authority, no overlooked authority, and no very special reason; applicant had expressly disclaimed challenging the debt on appeal so recall cannot be used to advance an opposite case; recall would not enable challenge to the High Court rectification judgment which requires a direct appeal and the time for such appeal has passed.
4 Mar 2021

YOUNG v YOUNG [2021] NZHC 369

Citation

[2021] NZHC 369
Court

High Court

Ella Young, as the successful party, was entitled to costs against Jina Kim. Costs in the Property Law Act proceeding were assessed on the 2B scale with specific disallowances and arithmetic corrections, resulting in $40,027.00; costs for the Family Court phase were awarded at the claimed legal aid repayment of $5,516.00. Costs-on-costs claims were denied and the respondent's impecuniosity did not justify any abatement. Total award $45,543.00.