New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Division of property

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2022

AAL HOLDINGS LTD v AITKEN [2022] NZHC 2973

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2973
Court

High Court

The Court ordered division in kind under s 339(1) and (4) on the parties' agreed terms because (a) expert evidence and valuers agreed freeholding with registered height covenants would enhance saleability and value, (b) unimpeded views from 121B were not a feature attaching to the land given the existing cross-lease development right over 121E and therefore were not a weighty s 342(f) consideration, and (c) 121 Ltd failed to establish compensable detriment or unfairness warranting refusal of division or payment under s 343(a).
19 May 2021

RAINEY v Kwok [2021] NZCA 199

Citation

[2021] NZCA 199
Court

Court of Appeal

Court held respondent met the threshold for maintenance due to limited earning capacity (age, limited English, no assets) and inability to be self-supporting; $785 per week for a two-year transitional period from separation was reasonable; because appellant retained the benefit of the property and delayed respondent receiving her share, it was fair to continue a reduced maintenance payment of $200 per week until respondent received her relationship property on 4 June 2020; appeal allowed in part and High Court order varied accordingly.
22 Nov 2017

SHAILER v SHAILER [2017] NZHC 2871

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2871
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed: the High Court held that s 33(4) grants a wide discretionary power to award interest not strictly confined to capital preservation or inflation compensation; despite partnership income being credited during separation, the factual realities (respondent being out of her capital, need to re-establish, expectation husband would acquire the farm and significant house price increases) justified an award of interest at 5% from 7 May 2013 on the agreed settlement sum (with appropriate deductions).
13 Feb 2013

LORNA MARY GEDDES V WAYNE ARTHUR JOHNSON HC TAU CIV-2010-470-747

Citation

openlaw-4f427536_5994_473e_a804_166be0f50330.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the court was not satisfied a substantial miscarriage of justice was likely if the judgment were enforced: the evidence relied on was not fresh and could have been called at trial; the applicant made a deliberate strategic choice not to give or call evidence; prospects of success on any future appeal are remote; and enforcement had already been partly implemented, so no real and substantial risk of injustice existed.
19 May 2010

KAMILO AND ORS V TUPOU HC AK CIV-2009-404-7042

Citation

openlaw-48455ddb_cfbd_45b6_bec9_6510be6921e8.pdf
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out because the plaintiffs did not comply with the court's directions to file affidavit evidence and a counsel memorandum and counsel indicated he had no instructions, demonstrating an absence of intention to proceed.
19 May 2009

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007

Citation

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that a partner's beneficial interest in partnership assets can be relationship property and that where relationship property was applied to develop vineyards and where the non‑owning spouse's actions (including domestic work and paid employment) indirectly enabled or funded development, the whole of the increase in value falls to be treated as relationship property under s 9A; where increases arise under s 9A(2) parties' shares are determined by their respective contributions to the increase, and on the facts the Court of Appeal's allocations and deductions were justified; acco…
9 Mar 2007

HYDE V HYDE HC WHA CIV-2006-488-504

Citation

openlaw-6cbec81a_73ac_44df_a2e7_a3cce5e7c8c3.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the correct inquiry is a global assessment of the use of the entire unsubdivided land; the respondent failed to prove the property was not used wholly or principally for household purposes and therefore the land was not a homestead but relationship property to be shared equally after adjustments.

New Zealand Case Law

AAL HOLDINGS LTD v AITKEN [2022] NZHC 2973

RAINEY v Kwok [2021] NZCA 199

SHAILER v SHAILER [2017] NZHC 2871

LORNA MARY GEDDES V WAYNE ARTHUR JOHNSON HC TAU CIV-2010-470-747

KAMILO AND ORS V TUPOU HC AK CIV-2009-404-7042

ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007

HYDE V HYDE HC WHA CIV-2006-488-504