Beasley v Young  NZFC 4495
Published 13 October 2020
Relationship property division — de facto relationship — leave to apply out of time — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2 & 44 — Care of Children Act 2004, s
132 — Sullivan v Sullivan  NZLR 912 (CA) — U v U  NZFLR 474 (HC) — Edwards v Edwards (1979) 2 MPC 51 (SC) —
Hatch v Cole FC Wellington FP409/00, 30 October 2003 — Shannon v Shannon HC Auckland CP13/98, 29 May 2000 — O'Connell v
Muharemi HC Auckland CP 546-SD01, 24 October 2003 — Scragg v Scott HC Rotorua CIV-2005-463-139 — McBride v McBride 
NZFLR 651 (FC).
This hearing was to determine when the parties' relationship ended. This issue was important because it would impact whether property acquired by the
respondent was relationship property. The applicant submitted the parties' relationship ended in May 2012 while the respondent said it had ended much earlier in
September 2009 when the applicant had moved out of the family home.
In 2009 the applicant moved into a house owned by the respondent's mother and paid rent to her. She claimed this break was temporary and the parties' resumed
their relationship in 2010 when she moved back in with the respondent.
The respondent rejected this, stating that the applicant had moved back in for financial reasons and because they had an amicable parenting arrangement. The
applicant had slept in their child's bedroom and no sexual relationship had existed.
The Judge preferred the respondent's evidence. The applicant provided little evidence to support her view, while the respondent and his mother had formal
financial arrangements in place that supported their statements that the relationship was over. The Judge decided the parties' relationship ended in September
2009. This meant the applicant would have to apply for leave to get an order for relationship property division. The Judge declined to grant leave, ruling that each
party was to retain the property in their possession as at September 2009.
Judgment Date: 19 June 2019.
* * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *