27 Oct 2023
Permission for a second appeal was declined because the proposed ground was overbroad and the real dispute was an intensely factual question about whether the apartment was the family home; the proposed appeal did not meet the Court of Appeal's threshold for a second appeal and was disproportionate given the quantum at stake (a quarter of $620,000).
22 Sept 2023
The threshold that the interim distribution sought does not exceed the applicant's ultimate share was satisfied and the applicant demonstrated ongoing prejudice from delay and lack of means. The respondent's non‑compliance with directions and failure to provide evidence undermined her opposition. Balancing the competing prejudice favoured the applicant; accordingly the Court ordered sale of the Family Home and equal division of net proceeds with liberty to seek directions to implement the orders.
31 Mar 2023
The Agreement was void under s21F because the parties did not obtain the independent legal advice nor lawyer witnessing/certification required; s21H could not validate the Agreement because non‑compliance materially prejudiced AJ given her vulnerability and the substantive effect of the Agreement; even if valid it would have been set aside under s21J for serious injustice as the Agreement became unreasonable over time; accordingly the family home and other relationship property are to be divided equally under the PRA and AJ's claim for occupation rent and WL's constructive trust/knowing recei…
28 Sept 2022
The contested document was validated under s14 Wills Act 2007 because contemporaneous medical and witness evidence established Andrea had testamentary capacity and intended the dispositions set out; for relationship property purposes the Life Insurance Policy is valued at date of separation (nil) and the post-separation increase on death is not relationship property, so proceeds vest in the estate subject to specified deductions; Cintra Place sale proceeds are relationship property subject to the parents' 31.3% proportionate interest, occupational rent and outgoings adjustments, and offsets r…
21 Jul 2022
The Court declined both applications for special leave because the proposed additional grounds were not seriously arguable: the High Court correctly applied orthodox fair market valuation principles rather than a private share sale formula; findings under s 44 that the sale intended to defeat rights and that consideration was inadequate were supportable and remedial relief under s 18C/s 25 was available; the High Court's s 9A(2) approach (deducting a partial inflation/pre-marriage component then dividing the remainder 50:50) was justified and the key person discount did not vitiate that analy…
16 Dec 2021
Court held s14A requirements met and ordered division according to overall contributions assessed on a broad‑brush basis: the property equity is to be valued at the hearing date and apportioned 60% to Bradford and 40% to Te Hei; mortgage liability and assumption of mortgage count as contributions but not necessarily as an automatic half of the advance; post‑separation payments and notional rent result in a specific credit to applicant (net $6,134) and respondent must account for agreed credit card debt ($5,150) in the shares and the applicant was given a limited option to purchase the respond…
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.
7 Sept 2021
Copyright in artworks created during the relationship is relationship property under the PRA; the Family Court was wrong to classify that copyright as the artist's separate property; consequently the Family Court could not decline to treat copyright as divisible under the presumption of equal sharing and the matter is remitted for valuation and division to achieve equality.
30 Jun 2021
The Seatoun loan repayments made to a family trust were payments to trust property and therefore outside the Family Court's jurisdiction under s 18B; they should not have been included in the s 18B compensation calculation. The Family Court correctly treated retained earnings as part of company equity reflected in share valuation and did not err in its valuation approach. Consequently the appeal is allowed in part and the Family Court equalisation payment is reduced to account for removal of the Seatoun s 18B item.
19 Nov 2020
On the facts the court found a resulting trust in favour of Mrs Ella Young: the cash purchase price derived from the plaintiffs and her late husband, Shane made no cash contribution and his assumption of mortgage liability was solely to satisfy lender requirements rather than an intention to acquire a beneficial interest; there was no evidence of an intention to gift a half share to Shane and the joint transmission form did not rebut the resulting trust. Accordingly legal title was ordered vested in Ella Young and the notice by Ms Kim removed.