Relationship property — jurisdiction — de facto relationship — occupation order — tenancy order — ancillary furniture order — reserved decision — Law Commission Review of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZLR R143. 2019) — Property Relationships Act 1976, ss 2, 8, 27(1), 28, 44 & 91 — Family Court Act 1980, s 11(b) — R v R [2010] NZFLR 555 — Price v Hardie [2003] NZFLR 481 — Lobb v Ryan [2020] NZHC 834 — Keats v Keats [2006] NZFLR 470 — Beric v Chaplin [2018] NZFC 3885 — Lobb v Ryan [2021] NZCA 425 — NZ and LN v Family Court at Auckland el al [2019] NZHC 210 — Luyk v Luyk [2020] NZFLR 617. The applicant and her deceased partner were in a de facto relationship and they lived in a property owned by a family trust. The applicant applied to the Court for an occupation order and an ancillary furniture order. Both applications were opposed by the respondent who had expressly communicated for the applicant to vacate the property. The main issue was whether an occupation order could be made against a property owned by a trust. Through case law it was found that because the property was owned by a trust, the Court had no jurisdiction to make an occupation order. A tenancy order was also sought in favour of the applicant. However, a tenancy order could only be made if the applicant was the sole or part of a joint tenant of the property. The Court determined that there was no evidence that the applicant held a tenancy to the property, therefore there was no jurisdiction to make a tenancy order. As a result the ancillary furniture order was not made. The applications were dismissed. Judgment Date: 30 August 2023.