Relationship property proceedings — application for compensation — disposition of relationship property to trust — orders as to settled property — nuptial settlement — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 44 & 44C — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 182 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 30, [2016] 1 NZLR 590 — Sutton v Bell [2020] NZHC 1557 — Sutton v Bell [2023] NZSC 65 — SMW v MC [2013] NZHC 396, [2014] NZFLR 71 — M v C [2018] NZFC 9155 — Regal Castings v Lightbody [2008 NZSC 87, [2009] 2 NZLR 433 — Gray v Gray [2013] NZHC 2890 — Ryan v Unkovich [2010] 1 NZLR 434 (HC) — Nation v Nation [2005] 3 NZLR 46 (CA) — Ward v Ward [2009] NZSC 125, [2010] 2 NZLR 31 — Preston v Preston [2021] NZSC 154, [2021] 1 NZLR 651 — Brooks v Brooks [1995] 3 All ER 257 (HL) — K v K [2022] NZHC 3123 — Da Silva v Da Silva [2016] NZHC 2064 — Little v Little [2020] NZHC 2612 — Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam). The parties had been married and had two children together. These proceedings were to determine an outstanding relationship property dispute between the parties. All other relationship property issues had been settled by way of court order. Prior to the relationship between the parties commencing, the respondent had purchased a house off a trust established by his parents. The parties subsequently moved into the house, meaning it became the "family home" under the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA). Some years later the respondent sold the house back to the trust. At issue was whether the sale of the house back to the trust amounted to a disposition of relationship property under either s 44 or s 44C of the PRA, and whether it amounted to a nuptial settlement under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act. If the sale back to the trust amounted to a disposition of relationship property, was it made either to defeat the applicant's rights under the PRA, or did it have the effect of defeating her rights under the PRA? There was also a question of whether there was a valid claim for unpaid rental or other unpaid debt to the trust (the second respondent) which might offset any remedy the applicant might receive. The Court considered evidence supplied by both parties, and determined that the disposition to the trust was one to which ss 44 and 44C could have applied, but that it was not made in order to defeat the applicant's rights under the PRA, nor did it have the effect of defeating the applicant's rights under the PRA. The Court also found that the transfer of property to the trust was not a nuptial settlement. As such, the Court did not have jurisdiction to exercise any discretion as to remedy. The applicant's claims were dismissed. As the issue of unpaid rental was only raised as an offset to any potential remedy, the Court did not need to consider this further. Judgment Date: 21 August 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *