Application to strike out — resettlement of trust assets — nuptial trust — nuptial settlement — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 182 — Attorney-General v Prince & Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 — Couch v Attorney-General [2008] 3 NZLR 725 — Ward v Ward [2009] NZCA 139 — Blood v Blood (1902) P 78 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 30 — Da Silva v Da Silva [2016] NZHC 2064 — Dyer v Gardiner [2020] NZCA 385. The respondent applied to strike out the applicant's application for resettlement of trust assets pursuant to s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act. The parties had been married but the marriage had been dissolved in 2015. The applicant sought intervention in relation to two settlements: the settlement of the Family Trust by the respondent's parents, and the settlement of a residential property on the Trust. The strike-out application was based on undue delay, and no merit or prospect of success on the part of the applicant in relation to both settlements. Under s 182 an application must be brought within a reasonable time after dissolution of the marriage. Although the delay of five years was a long delay, the relationship property proceedings and the respondent's own s 182 proceedings were not commenced until 2020. All of the parties' applications were brought within months of each other. In the circumstances, the Judge concluded that it was not an unacceptable delay. The next issue for determination was whether the Family Trust was a nuptial trust and whether the settlements were nuptial settlements. Case law support the proposition that a wide approach should be taken when considering this issue, as to narrow the meaning too much would fail to catch the diversity of circumstances which come before the court. As this was a strike-out application, it was not necessary to determine whether the Family Trust was in fact a nuptial trust, merely that there was an arguable case that it was. The Judge considered that there was an arguable case as to the status of the Trust. With regards to the settlements, it was also arguable that they were "settlements for the financial benefit of one of the parties with reference to their marital state". On the final issue of whether a court in considering the application under s 182 would choose to exercise its discretion to intervene and make provision for the applicant, the Judge concluded that it would. Therefore it was not appropriate for the Court to withhold from the applicant an opportunity to be heard at a substantive hearing. The Judge declined to strike out the application. Judgment Date: 13 October 2020.