New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Intermingling

  • 1 Sept 2020

    HOLMES v CROMBIE [2020] NZHC 2262

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 2262
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court upheld the Family Court judgment: Montgomery Place was relationship property due to intermingling of separate funds with joint relationship property (s10(2)), subject only to the respondent's concession to repay $90,811.64; the additional $10,000 deposit and $15,550.42 Bonus Bonds were not proven to be separate property; the $7,809.44 withdrawal from the joint account remained relationship property and must be returned to the pool; claims for missing chattels lacked sufficient evidence to award a specific sum; and services/payments to Fyfe did not establish a significant contri…

  • 26 Oct 2018

    COSSIO v COSSIO [2018] NZHC 2779

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 2779
    Court
    High Court

    JCL shares were relationship property because the evidence established the shares were transferred for value with a binding debt owed to the vendor (debt‑back) rather than gratuitous succession; repayments from dividends reduced the liability but did not convert the nature of the original transaction into a succession/gift. Permathene shares, although acquired via trust distributions, were partly sustained by application of relationship property (a $30,000 interest‑free advance and undrawn salary) such that s 17 may give rise to a compensatory adjustment. The Family Court costs award was set…

  • 20 Jul 2010

    GRAHAM V FOWLER HC AK CIV-2009-404-6470

    Citation
    openlaw-e2b8dccf_798d_4a06_8007_30aa327e9358.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the $354,924 advance to F & G Ltd was made from respondent's separate property and remained separate because there was no sufficient evidence of an intention to transfer or gift that asset to relationship property; s 9A(3) and s 17 did not convert the advance into relationship property; the $58,731 advanced from F & G Ltd to the appellant was her personal debt; advances to Mustang Charters were predominantly separate; no compensable dissipation under s 18C was proved; Coco income was separate and any contribution by appellant would yield, at most, a trivial award; the appr…