Published 15 February 2017
Validity of contracting out agreement — serious injustice — occupation order — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 21, 21J, 27 and 61 — Wells v Wells [2006] NZFLR 870 (HC). It was determined that the property in question was relationship property, and that a contracting out agreement was valid and should be interpreted as including reference to an application under s 61(2). As a result of that interpretation, the applicant would be be barred from making an option A election under s 61 unless serious injustice would be caused, and the Court set aside the agreement under s 21J. As serious injustice did not exist having considered the principles in "Wells", it was not appropriate to set aside the contracting out agreement. An occupation order was then made in the applicant's favour, although for a defined period of time to allow the beneficiaries under the will to receive their entitlements in due course. Judgment Date: 20 October 2016.
This website explains many of the things you might want to know if you are coming to the Youth Court, or just wondering how the Youth Court works.
Visit website›Ministry of Justice website with information on family issues including about going to court, forms and other times when you may need help.
Visit website›For information about courts and tribunals, including going to court, finding a court & collection of fines and reparation.
Visit website›On this site you will find information about our Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court including recent decisions, daily lists and news.
Visit website›