Reserved judgment — application for orders — relationship property — extraordinary circumstances — exception to equal sharing — occupation rent — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 2, 2G, 13, 18, 18B, 18C, 20E, 26 & 26A — Care of Children Act 2004, s 31 — De Malmanche v De Malmanche [2002] 2 NZLR 838, [2002] FRNZ 145 — Castle v Castle [1977] 2 NZLR 97 — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 — Kauwhata v Kauwhata [2000] NZFLR 755 — Brown v Starke [2016] NZFC 7132 — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 — Joseph v Johansen [1993] 10 FRNZ 302 — J v J [2001] NZFLR 1088 — Wilkinson v Wilkinson [2021] NZFC 8995 — S v W HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-4494, 27 February 2009 — Griffiths v Griffiths [2012] NZFLR 327 — Devery v Manukonga HC Auckland CIV-2003-404-005871, 21 May 2004 — Nicola Peart (ed) Family Property (online ed, Thomson Reuters). The parties had previously been married and were now in a dispute about how their relationship property was to be divided. An issue for the Court was whether extraordinary circumstances should apply to the division of the house they had owned at the time of separation. The house was registered in the name of the respondent, and he maintained that he had paid all its associated expenses since separation; that he had had to go on the benefit because of the applicant's allegations against him; and that it had been his property until proceedings commenced. The applicant opposed unequal division of the property and sought an immediate sale. Under s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act, the Court could order unequal division if ordering equal division would be repugnant to justice. The Court found that the respondent's paying of outgoings, his time on a benefit and his having care of one of the parties' children did not amount to extraordinary circumstances that would make equal division repugnant to justice. Therefore the house, along with all property owned by the parties at separation, was to be divided equally. The Court also declined the respondent's application to postpone sale of the house. However the Court awarded the applicant only $5000 in occupation rent, given that the respondent had made outgoings payments on the house following separation. The Court also made orders on division of rental payments, on payments for vehicles and business interests sold, and on payment of debts owing. Judgment Date: 23 August 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *