Reserved decision — relationship property — financial support — oral agreement — “de facto relationship” — spousal maintenance — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 2D, 8, 9, 9A, 13, 17, 18, 18B, 18C, 21A, 21F & 21H — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 63 & 64 — L v P [Division of property] [2008] NZFLR 401 — B v F [2010] NZFLR 67 — Scragg v Scott [2006] NZFLR 1076 — Excell v DSW (1990) 7 FRNZ 239, [1991] NZFLR 241 — X v X [Economic disparity] (2006) 24 FRNZ 934, [2006] NZFLR 361 — Evans v Evans (1992) 9 FRNZ 614 — West v West (No 2) [2004] NZFLR 164 — C v W HC New Plymouth CIV-2020-443-192, 28 July 2010 — Fraser v Fraser [2011] NZFLR 658 — Jane v Mikulicic [2019] NZFC 4888 — Stevenson Brown Ltd v Montecillo Trust [2017] NZCA 57 — ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd v Bushline Trustees Ltd [2020] NZSC 71, [2020] 1 NZLR 145 — Wellington City Council v Body Corporate 51702 (Wellington) [2002] 3 NZLR 486 — Fleming v Beevers [1994] 1 NZLR 385 — West v West (No 2) [2004] NZFLR 164 — Fraser v Fraser [2011] NZFLR 658 — Fischbach v Bonnar [2002] NZFLR 705. The parties sought determination on the division of relationship property and financial support following their separation. The Court first determined the date that the parties' relationship began and the date that it ended. The applicant made the claim that during their relationship the parties had agreed that if they were to break up, she would keep a residential property while the respondent would keep some shares. The respondent denied that there had been an agreement. The Court found that the evidence supported the applicant's claims that there had been an agreement. Further, to enforce the agreement would cause no material prejudice to the defendant. The Court exercised its discretion to uphold the agreement. The Court then made a series of other rulings, including declining to order rent payments by the applicant to the respondent, and ordering spousal maintenance payments of $6210 to the applicant. Judgment Date: 18 November 2022