Relationship property proceedings — division of property — income disparity compensation — serious injustice — unfair or unreasonable — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1N, 13, 15 & 21 — Harrison v Harrison (2004) 24 FRNZ 30 — Clark v Sims (2004) 23 FRNZ 757 — Pounteny v Pounteny CA 45/91, 20 September 1991 — X v X [2007] NZFLR 502 — V v V HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-764, 8 December 2006 — X v X [2010] 1 NZLR 601 — M v B [2006] 3 NZLR 660 — Jack v Jack HC Wellington, CIV-2013-485-4816 (2014) NZHC 1495 — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185. The parties, who had been in a relationship for 17 years and subsequently separated, were engaged in relationship property proceedings for division of their property. The applicant sought equal division of relationship property between the parties by way of a later payment of approximately $100,000, which was contrary to an agreement that the parties had each signed after separation. Both parties engaged a lawyer to seek advice before signing the agreement, which left the family home in its entirety to the respondent, and outlined that the deviation from the presumption of equal division of all relationship property was to recognise the respondent's income disparity resulting from her time out of the workforce, caring for their children. Under this agreement, the applicant was to receive 12.9 per cent of the total relationship property pool of $310,000. The Court noted that compromise agreements do not need to achieve the same outcome as the PRA, but that if there is a significant difference in what each party receives, this may suggest an unreasonable bargain. The Judge concluded that the previous 12.9/87.1 per cent division of relationship property was a serious injustice, and disadvantaged the applicant and his ability to place a deposit on a home for the children to stay in. The processes to follow when assessing appropriate compensation were outlined in a 2017 decision, but as the parties' agreement was made in 2014, the Judge assessed what amount might have been awarded on the basis of the authorities at that earlier point. An award of compensation was held to be discretionary. In making the decision, the Court looks to the income and living circumstances of both parties after separation. If one is held to be significantly higher than the other, this must be the result of the division of functions within the parties' relationship. The Court rejected both prior relationship property agreements, as the first had not appropriately compensated the respondent for her role as primary caregiver, and the second proportion of division created a serious injustice. The applicant was successful in his application to set aside the earlier agreement, and the respondent was successful in her application for compensation. The relationship property pool was to be divided based on the assessment of s 15 compensation and taking into account market growth, as 68 per cent to the respondent and 32 per cent to the applicant. Judgment Date: 14 May 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *