Relationship property dispute — marriage of short duration — exception to equal sharing — cultural considerations — immigration benefits — New Zealand residency — adjustments — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2E, 7, 13, 14, 18 & 18B — Martin v Martin [1979] NZLR 97 (CA) — Pepene v Pepene [2001] NZFLR 1061 — Scragg v Scott (2006) 25 FRNZ 942 — Castle v Castle [1977] 2 NZLR 97 — Joseph v Johansen [1993) 10 FRNZ 302 — Wilson v Wilson [1991] 1 NZLR 687 — S v W [2006] 2 NZLR 669 — Lebajo v Lebajo [1994] NZFLR 665 (FC) — Lebajo v Lebajo [1995] NZFLR 385 (HC) — Banda v Hart [1998] NZFLR 930. These proceedings were to determine several issues in relation to the parties' relationship property dispute: whether their marriage was one of short duration; whether there were extraordinary circumstances rendering equal sharing repugnant to justice; and what adjustments or other orders should be made. The parties separated just over three years after their marriage date. Under s 2E(1)(a) of the Property (Relationships) Act ("PRA") a marriage of short duration was one where the parties had lived together in the marriage for a period of less than three years, or for a period of more than three years if, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, a court considers it just to treat the marriage as one of short duration. With a marriage of short duration, under PRA, s 14(2), the presumption of equal sharing is displaced if the property was owned wholly or substantially by one party to the marriage at the time the marriage began. The respondent had owned a house in New Zealand prior to the parties commencing their marriage. He also owned several properties in Fiji, but this was outside the jurisdiction of a New Zealand court. The Judge considered relevant cases and the submissions of both parties, as well as evidence from friends of the parties. The Judge preferred the evidence in support of the applicant and determined that the marriage was not one of short duration. In relation to the equal sharing issue, the Judge considered the respective contributions by each party to the marriage and concluded they were relatively equal. The applicant had gained New Zealand residency through her marriage to the respondent, but this was not something the Court was prepared to consider as a windfall rendering equal sharing repugnant to justice. In relation to post-separation adjustments, the respondent submitted that $19,000 should be deducted from the applicant's share as he claimed she had damaged the carpet and fittings at the house with her hair dye. The Judge considered that any damage to the carpet and fittings was fair wear and tear and declined to grant an adjustment for this. A post-separation rental adjustment of $30,000 was made in favour of the applicant, as the respondent had had the benefit of living at the property since separation. Tallying up all the relationship property and dividing it by half resulted in an entitlement on the part of the applicant to $261,327. The Judge ordered that the respondent pay the applicant this sum (adjusted for costs as the case may be) by a specified date. If the respondent had not paid the applicant by that date, the property would be placed on the market and the net proceeds of sale (with adjustments) would be substituted for the calculations just made and the parties would share the costs associated with sale equally. Judgment Date: 16 September 2020.