New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 44 property (relationships) act 1976

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2021

SUTTON v BELL [2021] NZCA 645

Citation

[2021] NZCA 645
Court

Court of Appeal

s44 can apply to dispositions made before the formal commencement of a qualifying de facto relationship where, at the time of disposition, the parties were 'in contemplation' of living together as a couple and the disposer knew the transfer would defeat the other's future rights; knowledge of the defeating effect suffices as intent and on the facts the transfer to the Trust met that test, so the disposition was set aside and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
30 Apr 2021

POROS v BAX [2021] NZCA 149

Citation

[2021] NZCA 149
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds were largely factual or not seriously arguable as matters of law, raised no question of general importance, and did not present a real prospect of success sufficient to justify further appeal even given the applicant's private risk of bankruptcy.
8 Mar 2018

GARDINER v DYER [2018] NZHC 355

Citation

[2018] NZHC 355
Court

High Court

On the facts the disposals/nominations of CIP shares did not establish the requisite intention to defeat under s 44 for the 2001 transaction (nomination right lacked proven separate value and trustees provided market consideration); trustees acted in good faith in relation to later acquisitions; s 44C compensation was not justified given the benefits the respondent received from the trust (including avoidance of bankruptcy and occupation of trust property); s 182 relief was not available because the trust was not a nuptial settlement for the marriage in the relevant sense and the mortgage/occ…
28 Sept 2016

LU v HUANG & FEN [2016] NZHC 2311

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2311
Court

High Court

The Auckland sale proceeds were relationship property and were used to purchase the Christchurch property in Lu's name as a disposition intended to defeat Huang's PRA claim; Lu did not receive the funds in good faith nor provide valuable consideration; s44 applies and the Christchurch property must be vested for sale with proceeds shared to give Huang a half share of the relationship property used, after specified deductions, with the remainder split between Fen and Lu.
1 Dec 2015

DALLISON V VAN DYK [2015] NZCA 580

Citation

(2015) 30 FRNZ 427
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined leave to adduce further evidence because the proposed evidence was not fresh, could and should have been presented earlier, and was not cogent enough to affect the result; the Court declined leave to appeal because the issues advanced were essentially factual (valuation and assessment of expert evidence), did not raise questions of law of sufficient general importance, and concurrent findings in the lower courts and the need for finality weighed against a further appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

SUTTON v BELL [2021] NZCA 645

POROS v BAX [2021] NZCA 149

GARDINER v DYER [2018] NZHC 355

LU v HUANG & FEN [2016] NZHC 2311

DALLISON V VAN DYK [2015] NZCA 580