De facto relationship — property — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 2D — Hiroki v Gilbert FC Lower Hutt FAM-2005-032-000527 — DM v MP [De facto relationship] [2012] NZHC 503; NZFLR 385 — L v P [Division of Property] [2008] NZFLR 401 — Cooper v Sydney FC Dunedin FAM-2005-012-157, 28 September 2006 — PH v GH [De facto relationship: no substantial contribution] [201] NZHC 443 — Scragg v Scott [2006] NZFLR 1076, 920060 25 FRNZ 942 — PZ v JC [2006] NZFLR 97 (FC) — Ruka v Department of Social Welfare [1997] 1 NZLR 154 — C v S FC Dunedin FAM-2005-012-157 — Watene v Lord [2017] NZHC 388 — K v I Napier FC Napier FAM-2006-41-390 — Llamas v Massaar [2017] NZHC 357. This was a reserved judgment that determined whether the parties were in a de facto relationship for the status and division of property. The factors considered were: whether the parties lived together, if they had a sexual relationship, the duration of relationship, financial dependence, ownership of property and commitment to a shared life. There was no single factor that would be determinative to decide whether there had been a de facto relationship. Although the starting point of the parties' relationship was not agreed, there was an agreement that there was a relationship. It was found that the parties shared a residence but did not share a bedroom, although they presented conflicting evidence. Both parties accepted that there had been a sexual relationship, however they disagreed as to the length of their sexual relationship. Again, this was not a determinative factor. As for their finances, it was the respondent who provided majority of the money while the applicant was able to contribute in non-financial ways. The Court viewed this as a more qualifying factor than as a de facto relationship. The Court found that the respondent showed little commitment to a shared life with the applicant. They did not have children together. The Court found that there had been a relationship between the parties, but the relationship did not qualify as a de facto relationship. As for their property, the first property was registered solely under the respondent's name. However, the Court determined that it was joint property as the applicant had carried out significant modifications to the property. The second property was registered under the applicant's name but it was purchased by both parties. This was found to be a joint property even though there was contention as to the intention it was bought for. Judgment Date: 23 December 2021