Relationship property — division of property — extraordinary circumstances — justice — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 ss 10, 10(2), 11, 13, 13(1), 18 & 18(2) — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 — Bowden v Bowden [2016] NZHC 1201 — Brown v Starke [2016] NZFC 7132 — Venter v Trenberth [2015] NZHC, [2015] NZFLR 571 — Vann v Fay [2016] NZFC 1676 — Woolridge v Kumari [2021] NZHC 1975, [2021] NZFLR 461. The main issue in the proceedings was how the property was going to be divided. To depart from an equal division the Court needed to find that there were extraordinary circumstances, and then decide whether those circumstances were repugnant to justice. The applicant claimed that his age, lost registration as a pharmacist and his health concerns limited his ability to earn an income for himself. The main property in contention was the family home. The home was purchased using the parties' joint names. The Court found that the applicant made a significant contribution to building the house; the respondent made contributions when she was able to. The Court found that the parties paid an equal share of the costs related to the home and the daily expenses. The combination of factors, especially the contribution to the home, was mostly from the applicant. The threshold of extraordinary circumstances was reached. The Court found that equal sharing would have been repugnant to justice. Therefore the division was two thirds to the applicant and one third to the respondent.