Relationship property dispute — trust property — sale proceeds — equal division exception — exceptional circumstances — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2, 8 & 13 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 29, [2016] 2 NZLR 551, [2016] 31 FRNZ 61. These proceedings were to determine the extent of the applicant's relationship property entitlements and whether this could be accessed from the sale proceeds of a property in the respondent's family trust. The parties had met in the applicant's home country and had three children together. They had lived in New Zealand for some time before their marriage broke down. During the course of their marriage the respondent was a director and majority shareholder (and subsequently sole director and shareholder) of a company which purchased a property. The company was subsequently sold and put into liquidation, at which point the respondent bought the property back off the company in the name of his family trust. He refinanced the mortgage over the property and had since been adjudicated bankrupt and moved overseas. The property was sold in a mortgagee sale and after costs had been paid $193,771,73 remained for distribution. Counsel for the applicant submitted this was a case where s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act ought to apply. The Judge agreed, noting the respondent's actions in relation to the insolvency, in misappropriating the Working for Families credit to which the family was entitled, and his subsequent abscondment leaving the applicant to support three children alone on a small income, meant that the usual 50/50 division was repugnant to justice. The Judge assessed the share as 75/25 in the applicant's favour. The property was in the name of the respondent's family trust; however, the Judge considered the trust deed here was analogous to that in the Clayton case. The powers and entitlements of the respondent as settlor and discretionary beneficiary of the trust amounted to a general power of appointment in relation to the trust assets which were defined as "property" and "relationship property" under the PRA. The applicant was therefore entitled to a 75 per cent share of the proceeds of sale of the property, accounting for outstanding debt of the respondent's daughter and interim distribution paid to the applicant. The Judge also awarded the applicant costs. Judgment Date: 27 November 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *