15 Nov 2004
The Court granted leave to appeal on the specific legal question whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the vesting requirement for Marinich Drive (except two metres) did not amount to a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) RMA, thereby permitting full appellate consideration of that legal issue.
1 May 1998
Because the appellant and the deceased were living apart at the time of death and the deceased was not financially contributing to the appellant's welfare, and the separation was not principally due to health, imprisonment, or employment, the appellant did not satisfy the statutory definition of 'spouse' in section 3 and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Jun 1996
The parties were living apart at the time of the deceased's death and the review officer was entitled to find there was no proven financial contribution by the deceased to the appellant; therefore under the statutory definition of 'spouse' the appellant was excluded and not entitled to the survivor's grant.