Relationship property proceedings — alternative approach to valuation — exception to equal sharing — lump sum award — economic disparity — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 8, 11B, 13, 15, 17, 18B & 44F — Evidence Act 2006, s 92(1) — Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, s 25 — Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277, [1995] NZFLR 1 (CA) — M v C [2019] NZHC 813 — Castle v Castle [1977] 2 NZLR 97 (SC) — M v B [2006] 3 NZLR 660, [2006] NZFLR 641, (2006) 25 FRNZ 171 (CA) — P v P [Relationship Property] [2003] NZFLR 925, (2003) 22 FRNZ 895 — Schubert v Schubert [2001] 1 NZLR 76, [2000] NZFLR 1077, (2000) 19 FRNZ 652 (HC). These proceedings were to resolve a relationship property dispute between the parties. The parties had been in a de facto relationship and subsequently married but had since separated. At issue were the valuations of various items of property, including the respondent's 50 per cent shareholding in the first company and the status and value of a real estate property. The applicant also sought adjustments for her contributions towards the increase of the respondent's separate property; an adjustment for the respondent's use of the real estate property; compensation for the absence of a family home; post-separation compensation; a lump sum award or transfer of property; interest on her share of the relationship property since separation; and compensation for loss of use in her share of the relationship property since separation. The applicant also applied for an exception to equal sharing on the basis that equal sharing would be repugnant to justice. The Court determined that a motor vehicle had been purchased from company funds and was therefore not properly classified as relationship property; rather it formed part of the assets of the company and therefore part of the share valuation. An excavator had been purchased by a separate Australian company and ownership had never formally been transferred to the second company in New Zealand. Its value was fixed at the last known depreciated value. The respondent's 50 per cent share in the first company was valued at $702,000, which was classed as relationship property. The increase in value of the shares was fixed at 60 per cent in favour of the respondent and 40 per cent to the applicant. The applicant was therefore entitled to an adjusted total figure in the shares of $303,675. The real estate property had been purchased by the first company due to neither of the parties having New Zealand IRD numbers at the time. As such, it was separate property. However, the debt owed by the company to the parties for the advance for the purchase of the property constituted relationship property. The applicant advanced an argument in the alternative, that the first company held the real estate property on trust for the parties. The Court found there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of a constructive trust. On the application to depart from equal sharing, the Court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that equal sharing would be repugnant to justice. The Court also found there was insufficient evidence to make an assessment as to whether the respondent's living situation was significantly higher due to the division of functions within the marriage, and the application for a lump sum award or transfer of property was dismissed. The Court considered whether any further compensation for contributions made after separation were justified, and found that none were. The applicant's claim for compensation for absence of a family home also failed for lack of jurisdiction and factual basis. Judgment Date: 25 September 2024.