Interlocutory application — whether qualifying relationship — de facto relationship — family violence — equitable jurisdiction — strikeout application — extension of time — overall justice — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2D, 4, 14, 14A, 15, 18B, 18C, 21G, 24 & 25 — District Court Act 1016, ss 74 & 76 — Family Court Act 1980, s 11 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 193,194 & 207 — District Court Rules 2014, r 14.12 — B v F [de facto] [2010] NZFLR 67 — Scragg v Scragg [2006] NZFLR 1076 (HC) — S v M HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-1940, 14 April 2007 — L v P [Division of property] [2008] NZFLR 401 (HC) — Picton v Uxbridge [2015] NZHC 1050 — PH v GH [de facto relationship: no substantial contribution] [2013] NZFLR 387 — Schmidt v Gerrard [2003] NZFLR 1050 (FC) — Te Hei v Bradford [2020] NZFLR 371 — Beuker v Beuker (1997) 1 MPC 20 (SC) — Ritchie v Ritchie (1991) 80 FRNZ 197 (HC) — Wayne v Maher [2019] NZHC 821 — JNL v DN FC Whanganui FAM-2004-083-863, 21 August 2006 — Aschenbrenner v Williams [2015] NZFC 3602 — Lee v Thompson [2016] NZFC 3048 — Hewson v Deans [2020] NZHC 1465 — DMA v SMK FAM-2009-073-000042 — AC v RL FAM-2004-031-000057 — Holland v Dollard [2020] NZFC 2051 — McCoy v Poots [2015] NZFC 5934. This was an interlocutory hearing to determine whether the parties had been in a qualifying de facto relationship, and therefore, whether substantive relationship property proceedings could be brought by the applicant. As the application was out of time, the Court also had to consider whether to grant leave for an extension to bring an application. The respondent also sought to strike out the applicant's claim. The applicant submitted that the parties had been together for a period of 4 years, whereas the respondent contended that they had only been in a committed relationship for a period of some 7 months. The Court looked at the evidence available, which included affidavits from both parties, a history of police safety orders and criminal charges against the applicant, and concluded that the relationship was not a qualifying relationship, rather a relationship of short duration. Where a relationship is deemed to be one of short duration, a court can still make orders in respect of relationship property if the applicant can establish that there was either a child of the relationship or that the applicant has made a "substantial contribution" to the relationship and that failure to remedy this under the Property (Relationships) Act would result in "serious injustice". The respondent had children from a previous marriage but the parties did not have any children together. The evidence submitted by the applicant in relation to his contributions to the relationship were limited; however, the Court noted this was likely due to the applicant's focus on his application for leave to bring the substantive proceedings. As such, the respondent's application to strike out was declined. On the issue of leave for an extension of time to bring the substantive claim, the Court used the criteria from Beuker v Beuker, and approached this by taking the applicant's relationship end-date, and considering the reasons for the delay in bringing the case. From the applicant's perspective the delay was not unreasonable (just over 3 years), and the Court found that the reasons for delay were credible. The Court was unable to assess the merits of the applicant's case but considered that the applicant had an arguable case. The Court then considered the prejudice to the respondent were leave to be granted. The respondent had given substantial evidence in relation to the prejudice she had suffered as a result of the delay; from her perspective, the relationship had been over some 6 years, she had left her business to the applicant and paid other debts, and she wanted to move on with her life. The Court determined that there would be significant prejudice to the respondent were the claim be allowed to proceed. The Court then considered the overall justice of the situation and determined that the result fell in favour of not granting leave. The Court declined the application of leave for an extension of time. Judgment Date: 12 March 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *