Relationship property — de facto relationship — division of property — interlocutory application — filing time extension — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 175 & 182 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 8, 13, 18, 18B, 24 & 42 — Land Transfer Act 2017, s 143 — Ritchie v Ritchie (1991) 8 FRNZ 197, [1992] NZFLR 266 (HC) — Stedmances v Stedmances (1987) 2 FRNZ 498, 4 NZFLR 577 (CA) — Lawrance v Van Hammersteon [2015] NZFC 1426 — Beuker v Beuker (1977) 1 MPC 2 — Saunders v Wilkinson [2013] NZFC 7970 — Lee v Thompson [2016] NZFC 3048. The parties were in a long term de facto relationship. They had been separated for about five years before the applicant filed for the division of property. It should have been filed within three years of the date of separation. The applicant sought time extension to file his application. The application was challenged by the respondent. The guiding principle for this decision was providing justice between the parties. The factors that were considered were: time between the time limit to file and the filing of the application; explanation for the delay; merits of the case; and the prejudice to the respondent. The applicant's reason for the delay was that the parties were trying resolve the division of their property without court proceedings. The Court found that 18 months was not a significant delay and there was an attempt to negotiate a resolution. The explanation was found to be adequate. It was also found that the application did have merit as the applicant was expected to receive between 30 and 40 per cent of the relationship property pool. The Court found that there would be no serious injustice or significant prejudice if extended time was granted. Overall, the Court ordered to extend the time for the applicant to file his applications relating to the division of relationship property. Judgment Date: 14 February 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *