Division of relationship property — order for sale — unjustified delay — failure to observe court orders — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA), ss 2, 13, 17, 27 & 33 — High Court Rules 2016, sch 6. This hearing was brought to bring effect to an earlier application for the division of relationship property. The parties had previously been directed to sell two residential properties. The respondent had filed an appeal against this decision but failed to comply with Schedule 6 of the High Court Rules and the appeal was dismissed. The applicant sought classification and valuation of the relationship assets and debts, orders under ss 13 and 17 of the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA), and a resolution as to the outstanding costs awarded at the earlier interlocutory application. The Judge granted an occupation order to the applicant under s 27 of the PRA for the family home, giving the applicant the sole right to market and sell the property, with the net proceeds division to be determined at a later hearing. The same was ordered for the second property. The application for occupation/rent was unopposed and the Judge directed the respondent to pay $17,958 plus $104.75 per week from 20 March 2020 until the date of the judgment. Due to a failure by the respondent to provide bank statements, the Court inferred that he did earn income during the relationship which was not disclosed. He was ordered to pay the applicant $216,666.66 (representing half the income he obtained during the relationship), from his share of relationship property. As the respondent's business no longer held any value, the Judge held that the significant sum awarded for his undisclosed income would account for the money earned by the business as well. Another property was bought by a company of which both parties were shareholders. The shares in the company were held to be relationship property and ancillary orders would be needed in order to realise them as such. The Judge directed that the property owned by the company was to be valued and the borrowing against the property assessed. The respondent was then to pay the applicant half the value of the shares. The applicant submitted that she would pursue an exception to the equal sharing of relationship property under s 13 unless certain orders were met. The Judge dismissed the application on the basis that it did not meet the high threshold required and as she had succeeded on all other matters before the Court, any extra costs incurred can be remedied by an order for costs. Costs were awarded in her favour on a 2B basis with a 25 per cent uplift. Judgment Date: 22 May 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *