Relationship property proceedings — trustee powers — life insurance policy — economic disparity — spousal maintenance — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2, 11, 13, 15, 18, 44, 44C, 44F & 63 — Lambley v Silk Pemberton Ltd [1976] 2 NZLR 427 (CA) — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 29 — Stonne Ltd v Ronyx Holdings Ltd (2005) 7 NZCPR 18 (HC) — Scott v Williams [2018] 1 NZLR 507. This hearing was to determine various issues in relation to the parties' relationship property dispute. The issues for determination were: what constituted relationship property, with regards to the farmland, the company, and chattels; whether an award should be made to the applicant for economic disparity; whether an adjustment to the Trust should be made; and whether the applicant was entitled to spousal maintenance. The parties had been married some nine and a half years and had two children together. When the parties entered into a relationship, a trust existed under which the respondent was a beneficiary. The trust owned farmland, which the parties both worked on, including running a B&B. Shortly after the parties entered into a relationship, the original trust was wound up and a new trust formed, under which the respondent was a trustee (alongside his sister and an accountant) and a discretionary beneficiary. The farmland was transferred to the new trust. At issue with regards to the trust was whether the respondent's powers in respect of the trust were such as to amount to property under the PRA. The Judge considered this principle applied here, noting however that the majority of the property resettled into the second trust was the separate property of the respondent. Some relationship property had been applied to the property during the course of the relationship. This included income derived from working the farmland, as well as company income. The Judge fixed the value of relationship property, with regards to the farmland, as the valuation of the farm at date of hearing less the valuation at date of resettlement. The debt of the company was to be divided equally between the parties. In relation to the chattels, there was limited evidence as to what constituted relationship chattels and their valuation. As there was an insurance policy for $45,000 of furniture, the Judge ordered that the respondent account to the applicant for half this sum. With regards to the economic disparity issue, the Judge did not consider that the respondent did not have a significantly higher income, and even if so, the Judge did not consider that the disparity was a result of the division of functions in the relationship. The applicant's spousal maintenance application was also declined. The Judge also did not consider it necessary to consider a Trust adjustment given the findings in relation to the Trust. Judgment Date: 5 March 2019. Note: this judgment has been appealed: Pinney v Cooper [2020] NZHC 1178.