Relationship property division — exception to equal sharing — extraordinary circumstances — relationship property — relationship debt — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 11, 13 & 20 — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 (CA) — Joseph v Johansen [1993] 10 FRNZ 302 — Kidd v Russell [2018] NZHC 3032, [2018] NZFLR 841 — Brown v Starke [2016] NZFC 7132 — Bowden v Bowden [2016] NZHC 1201, [2017] NZFLR 56 — Venter v Trenberth [2015] NZHC 545, [2015] NZFLR 571. This was a judgment to determine the parties' relationship dispute. The Judge had previously found there to be a qualifying relationship of over four years. At issue was whether the exception to the equal sharing rule under s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA) applied (as argued by the applicant); whether a $50,000 loan taken out during the relationship was relationship or separate debt; and how the remainder of the relationship property ought to be divided. The test under s 13 for the exception to equal sharing was "extraordinary circumstances" meaning equal sharing was repugnant to justice, which was a high threshold to meet but not an impossible one to attain. The applicant argued that the age difference (16 years) between the parties and his health meant he did not have much of his working life left and was therefore at a disadvantage to the respondent. He also argued that there was a disparity in the contributions towards the purchase of the family home, which was in large part funded by the proceeds of sale of his own property. When the parties separated and went to sell the family home, they discovered that it had been built on an illegal fill area. They had to sell the property at a substantially lower price to a cash buyer as no bank would lend against the property given the land issue. The Judge did not accept that this constituted extraordinary circumstances. Both parties had agreed to purchase the property and omitted to obtain pre-purchase inspections which would have exposed the issue prior to purchase. The respondent was also the one with an income upon which the bank was willing to lend them the money in the first instance. The Judge declined to invoke the exception to equal sharing. With regards to the loan taken out during the course of the relationship, which was put towards the purchase of a franchise business, repayments to the respondent's parents for a car, and various living expenses, the Judge determined this to be relationship debt. The business was not doing well, and the Judge determined the value to be nil. The relationship property to be divided equally between the parties was the money contained in the solicitor's trust account, the increase in value of the respondent's KiwiSaver account during the course of the relationship, and the value of the car. A further property issue related to dogs owned by the respondent. The Judge considered these should vest in the respondent with no adjustment in favour of the applicant. Costs were reserved, with the option to pursue these within 60 days. Judgment Date: 22 May 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *