General power of appointment — trustee — "property" — relationship property — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2, 8(e), 11(1)(c), 25 & 33(3)(m) — Trustee Act 1955 — Higgins v Higgins [2019] NZFC 3703 — Higgins v Higgins [2019] NZFC 1716 — Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30, [2015] 3 NZLR 293 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 29, [2016] 1 NZLR 551. This hearing was to determine the status of an investment trust of which the parties were trustees; the value of the trust; and what orders were required for a division of the parties' relationship property. An earlier decision of the Court had established that the rights, powers and interests of the family trust constituted property for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act ("PRA"), and, as the trust had been set up during the course of the parties' marriage, it was also determined to be relationship property. The Judge adopted the same view of the investment trust that the general power of appointment and absolute power to do anything had the practical effect of co-ownership, in line with the Supreme Court judgment of Clayton. Having determined the status of the trust powers, the Judge considered that the value of the parties' rights and powers was equal to the value of the trust assets which was the value of the commercial unit, being $405,000. Therefore the value of each party's interest was $202,500. The Judge determined that there was no reason to depart from the usual 50/50 split of relationship property, and each party was entitled to a half-share of the value of the investment and family trusts. The Judge considered costs and, noting that the respondent had opposed every aspect of the proceedings without offering any solutions, awarded the successful applicant costs on a schedule 2B basis. Judgment Date: 16 November 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *