8 Apr 2022
Leave to adduce further evidence refused because the proposed material was not fresh and was often hearsay or obtainable earlier; leave to bring a second appeal refused because the grounds were factual, challenged credibility findings and common residence assessments that were open to the Courts, and did not raise questions of law or public or private importance sufficient to justify a second appeal.
30 Nov 2021
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the parties were found to have had two short de facto relationships (late Oct/Nov 2014–end Feb 2015 and Dec 2015–Feb 2016) but the principal property at [withheld] was separate as it was acquired by the respondent before the qualifying de facto relationship and not in contemplation of, nor intended for, common use; the applicant did not make substantial contributions in the short qualifying periods and failure to order division of residual assets would not result in serious injustice.
31 Oct 2019
Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the First Agreement operated to contract out of s9A(1) and s9A(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; the Family Court did not err in that finding. However the Family Court erred in its interpretation of s9A(1) to the extent it dismissed as a matter of law that retained earnings/underpaid remuneration could amount to an application of relationship property; the High Court allowed the appeal on the classification point and remitted the matter for the Family Court to assess whether retained earnings should be classified as relationship property and whether giving ef…
19 May 2015
The High Court held that the Family Court did not err: there was a post-1 February 2002 de facto relationship of short duration; s 14A applied because a child existed and the respondent made a substantial contribution; the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice; the Family Court's pragmatic assessment of relationship property (~NZD70000) and the 60/40 division yielding a NZD42000 award was open to it on the evidence; the prior NZD30000 payment was repayment of a separate debt and not included in the s 14A award; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
15 Mar 2012
Judge Maude's factual finding that the first Atascadero property was acquired after the relationship began from funds to which the appellant was effectively entitled and for the common use or common benefit of both partners was open on the evidence; proceeds of sale deployed into subsequent Californian purchases therefore became relationship property under s 8(1)(ee); excluding those proceeds from the 2002 relationship property agreement produced serious injustice warranting setting the agreement aside, and the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that outcome.
30 Apr 2009
Leave to appeal was dismissed because, although s 21J(4)(d) permits inquiry into parties' mental states, the factual matrix here (respondent's documented assumptions in the draft agreement and the subsequent breakdown of the relationship) meant the point was not appropriate for further appellate consideration and existing guidance in Harrison is persuasive; accordingly the High Court declined to grant leave.