Relationship property dispute — unequal sharing —extraordinary circumstances — tax fraud — company shares — goodwill of company — IRD penalties — post-separation profits — company assets — negative value — economic disparity — domestic violence — trust property — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 13, 15 & 20 — Family Protection Act 1980, s 182 — Ward v Ward [2009] NZSC 125, [2010] 2 NZLR 31 — Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust) [2016] NZSC 30, [2016] NZFLR 189 — Briggs v Briggs (1996) 14 FRNZ 404 (HC) — Johnson v Johnson [2016] NZHC 890, [2016] 3 NZLR 227 — Z v Z (No 2) [1997] 2 NZLR 258 (CA) — Greenslade v Greenslade (1978) 2 MPC 69 (SC) — T v T (Division of Property) [2008] NZFLR 286 (HC) — Clayton v Clayton (Vaughan Road Trust) [2016] NZSC 29, [2016] NZFLR 230 — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185, [2018] 1 NZLR 507 — Tapuae v Mawson HC Napier CIV_2009_441_000464, 10 December 2009 — Castle v Castle [1977] 2 NZLR 97 (SC) — Pickering v Pickering [1994] NZFLR 201 (CA) — Ward v Ward [2009] NZSC 125, [2010] 2 NZLR 31. The parties had been unable to resolve issues relating to the division of their relationship property following the end of their marriage in 2016. Among the issues were whether the goodwill of the first respondent's company was owned by him or the company. Throughout the parties' marriage the first respondent had also evaded paying tax in, at best, a grossly careless manner. The parties had also created a trust (the second respondent) and could not agree on how to divide it. Based on the way the first respondent conducted business (he was the only employee, knew customers by name and did not advertise) it was determined he owned the goodwill of the company. Due to his tax evasion, the company now owed a debt to the IRD to the extent that the company had a negative equity. As the applicant had enjoyed the benefit of the money not paid to the IRD it was deemed to be relationship property. However, the applicant had been completely unaware of the first respondent's actions and had been mentally ill, physically ill, abused by the first respondent and suffered from issues with alcohol, the relationship property was to be divided 30:70 in favour of the applicant (meaning she owed less of the debt). The first respondent was to keep the company and the applicant was to return any company property in her possession, but was to keep two luxury cars deemed to be her separate property. The trust was to be equally divided into two separate trusts. The applicant and first respondent would have access to one each and their children were to remain the final beneficiaries as this had been the intention of the parties since the trust was set up. The family home was to be sold and furniture and furnishings divided equally after being valued. Judgment Date: 13 June 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *