New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separate property vs relationship property

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2018

BETHELL v BETHELL [2018] NZHC 3171

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3171
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld admission of the accountant's evidence; held the Stumpy Trust current account credit of $915,270 is relationship property; held residual Hussey Developments liabilities are personal to Sam and not to be shared; held the Stumpy Trust and the 2005 transfer of Timpendean Farm were nuptial settlements subject to s182 FPA; found the Family Court erred in treating the Trust as insolvent after proper offsets; and on exercise of s182 discretion ordered a $300,000 resettlement into a new discretionary trust for Diana and the children, with other asset valuations and an equalisati…
16 Nov 2016

BARTRAM v BARTRAM [2016] NZHC 2706

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2706
Court

High Court

Although the agreement satisfied formal certification requirements, giving effect to it would cause serious injustice under s21J because the disputed properties were acquired as part of a joint endeavour, the wife's sole shareholding and structuring for tax did not demonstrate an intention to exclude the husband from equitable entitlement (guarantees and joint loans amount to contributions), and the resulting disproportionate outcome justified setting the agreement aside and dividing the property under the Act.
8 Sept 2016

CARTER v CALDIS [2016] NZCA 424

Citation

[2016] NZCA 424
Court

Court of Appeal

Applications for an extension of time and for leave to bring a second appeal were declined because the delay would prejudice respondents, the chattels second appeal did not meet the threshold for a second appeal, and the other proposed grounds of appeal lacked prospect of success such that allowing further appeal would not be in the interests of justice.
31 Mar 2011

GRANT V GRANT HC AK CIV-2010-404-005158

Citation

openlaw-80b5dea5_fb43_4410_9369_78f0b2171bbc.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's findings: the College Hill property was, on the balance of probabilities, a gift from the first respondent's mother and retained separate property character; the bundle of rights in the family trust is relationship property but should be valued at the date of hearing using the practical revised valuation approach (net value accepted $369,000); the appellant failed to prove post-separation mortgage increases or advances warranted adjustment to the valuation; and there was insufficient evidence to treat the marina berth as relationship property. The appe…
30 Jul 2010

HYDE V HYDE HC WHA CIV-2006-488-504

Citation

openlaw-66a09635_a06d_4b2f_82b3_4e2fd127a945.pdf
Court

High Court

The homestead provisions apply only to the defined homestead area (as found by Judge O'Donovan, approx 7.7 hectares); the demarcation approach to defining family home/homestead is correct; increases in value of the remaining separate property are largely inflationary/passive and not attributable to relationship property or applicant's actions under s9A, so no recharacterisation occurs; the Family Court's discretionary s17 award of $20,000 stands; appeal dismissed.
16 Dec 2008

KEITH MERVYN GEORGE HUNTER V DAVID MARTIN CARDEN CA CA30/2008

Citation

openlaw-bd88495f_dbca_4cff_a526_654efec69011.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the proposed appeal is hopeless: summary judgment was properly granted, the alleged breach by the solicitor could not have produced a better outcome for the applicant given that separate property or its proceeds would have been treated as relationship property, and thus no causation of loss was established.

New Zealand Case Law

BETHELL v BETHELL [2018] NZHC 3171

BARTRAM v BARTRAM [2016] NZHC 2706

CARTER v CALDIS [2016] NZCA 424

GRANT V GRANT HC AK CIV-2010-404-005158

HYDE V HYDE HC WHA CIV-2006-488-504

KEITH MERVYN GEORGE HUNTER V DAVID MARTIN CARDEN CA CA30/2008