New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relationship debt

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2023

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2023] NZCA 566

Citation

[2023] NZCA 566
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the advances were, to the extent established, loans repayable to the Abel Trust but most contested advances were not relationship debts: the opening advance account included a relationship debt for pre-1996 renovations but the quantum was uncertain so the Court fixed a fair allocation of $150,000; the 2004–2005 renovation advances were not established as relationship debts; the Carpe Diem funding was not found to be an interest-free relationship debt on available contemporaneous accounting and was not a relationship debt; advances used to acquire Global Hort shares were found t…
15 Dec 2022

BACON v BACON [2022] NZHC 3441

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3441
Court

High Court

Respondent was the successful party overall; costs are awarded to respondent under High Court Rules but reduced to reflect partial failure (15% reduction). Specific duplicated and erroneous items in costs schedule are to be deducted ($717 and $1,195) and the applicant must file an amended schedule for certification; no additional allowance for second counsel or extra costs for preparing costs submissions was made.
2 Sept 2020

DYER v GARDINER [2020] NZCA 385

Citation

[2020] NZCA 385
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed in part: dispositions of AAC/CIP shares and Dyer's 2000 shares were dispositions for s44 and s44C analysis; although trustees lacked good faith the Trust supplied adequate consideration so s44(2) transfer/compensation orders were unavailable, but s44C remedy was appropriate for (a) compensation for half the value/increase/dividends of shares the appellant disposed or was otherwise entitled to (to be valued at the Family Court hearing date or, if not practicable, via an alternative formula), and (b) award under s11B requires equal shares of selected relationship property so appl…
3 Jun 2020

PICARD v MARTIN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1206

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1206
Court

High Court

Woolford J held the Family Court was wrong to dismiss the constructive trust claim and found that Picard and Martin established an institutional constructive trust over the improvements (the relocatable house and curtilage) at 628 Paradise Valley Road because their monetary and non‑monetary contributions causally enhanced the property, manifestly exceeded the benefits they received, and a reasonable expectation of an interest existed; the court also upheld that the $50,000 advanced in 2007 constituted a loan/relationship debt repayable on sale and directed repayment, fixed the value of the im…
4 Dec 2018

EMERY v THORN [2018] NZHC 3164

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3164
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's actual and reasonable costs are payable from the estate because the dispute arose from the deceased's failure to make a will, the plaintiff was entitled to pursue priority for letters of administration under r 27.35, the declaration proceedings focused solely on the de facto relationship and were reasonable, and the defendants' objections (including debt/conflict concerns) did not justify denying recovery of costs; however the plaintiff must particularise and justify the claimed amounts before the court will fix the quantum.
4 May 2016

A MIYAZAKI v K MIYAZAKI AND M MIYAZAKI [2016] NZHC 873

Citation

[2016] NZHC 873
Court

High Court

The court found significant and credible factual disputes—notably the second defendant's denial of knowledge and her allegation the loan agreement may be fabricated and the provenance of the original document—that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone; therefore the plaintiff could not prove there was no defence and summary judgment was not appropriate, so the application was dismissed.
22 Mar 2011

LEZAIC V BAYNE HC AK CIV-2010-404-7010

Citation

openlaw-0963b8af_c8a9_49a4_acac_fd598ccea875.pdf
Court

High Court

High Court dismissed the appeal: the May 2007 s 21 agreement was properly set aside because the respondent's independent legal advice was manifestly inadequate causing serious injustice under s 21J(1); the transfer of the Bay of Islands property was properly set aside under s 44 because the disposition was made to defeat the respondent's PRA rights and the purported valuable consideration/good faith was not established; the $182,390 (K15) advance was not a relationship debt as it was made while the parties were separated and was not applied to relationship property.
16 Dec 2010

L V S HC WN CIV-2010-485-1207

Citation

openlaw-5f0d6cde_8d1a_403c_a5f3_1362ec4f4d55.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal only insofar as the Judge's valuation of the FDL shares lacked a proper evidential foundation and remitted valuation to the Family Court; all other factual findings (classification of specific credit card debts as non-relationship or shared as found, and that the trust loan was not outstanding and interest not owing) were supported by evidence and upheld, with the appellate court declining to disturb the primary factual findings.
3 Sept 2010

PGO V MAB HC AK CIV-2009-404-007143

Citation

openlaw-ba699607_1016_42ad_a8fa_2a2efe5504a2.pdf
Court

High Court

There was insufficient admissible evidence to quantify any diminution in market value or to establish that any diminution was caused by deliberate action or inaction by Ms B; the Family Court judge lawfully exercised discretion in declining to award interest having regard to the parties' conduct and Ms B's primary childcare and financial responsibility; evidence supported that PSIS account funds belonged to Ms B's mother and that advances from sister were loans used for household/children and therefore relationship debt; costs of the s 25(3) application were properly declined on the facts. Co…
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…