Application to transfer proceedings — relationship property proceedings— contracting-out agreement — jurisdiction of Family Court — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 4, 21, 21A, 21G, 21F, 21J & 38A — Family Courts Act 1980, s 11 — Evidence Act 2006, s 57 — District Courts Act 2016, ss 74 & 75 — KMH v CLH [2012] NZHC 537 — Jacobson v Jacobson [2012] NZHC 2292 — MAC v MAC FC Rotorua FAM-2017-063-000652, 29 April 2021 — Mitchell v Mitchell (1994) 12 FRNZ 286 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 29 — Pinney v Cooper [2020] NZHC 1178 — Carmine v Ritchie [2012] NZHC 1514 — NZMC v Foulkes [2015] NZCA 552 — Goldie v Campbell [2017] NZHC 1692 — Gilmore v Gilmore (1993) NZFLR 561 — Royal Reid v Liu [2017] NZFC 4972 — Toma v Toma (1992) 9 FRNZ 39 — Cuthbert v Humphries FC Auckland FP 004/313-D/03, 20 May 2004 —Christensen v Cressey, FC Tauranga FAM-2005-070-1137, 10 June 2008 — Hare v Hare [2019] NZHC 2801 — LAC v KAY [2011] NZCA 271 — LAC v KAY HC Dunedin, CIV-2010-412-57, 27 May 2010. The parties were involved in relationship property proceedings, wherein the applicant sought to have two contracting-out agreements set aside. This hearing was to determine an application by the first respondent to have the proceedings transferred to the High Court pursuant to s 38A of the Property (Relationships) Act. In determining an application to transfer proceedings to the High Court, the Family Court had to take into account the complexity of the proceedings, whether there were any proceedings before the High Court that involved the same parties and related issues, and any other circumstances the Judge considered relevant. The Judge considered the factors and determined that the proceedings were not sufficiently complex; the Family Court had jurisdiction to consider the issues, and a hearing could proceed in the Family Court a year earlier and at a lower cost than a hearing in the High Court. The Judge dismissed the application. Judgment Date: 3 August 2022.