Interlocutory application — property relationship dispute — occupation order — warrant to enforce — religion — Family Courts Rules 2002, r 220 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 18B, 27 & 28A — District Court Act 2016 , ss 79 & 194 — District Court Rules 2014, r 19.65 — JAR v AMR FC Oamaru FAM-2010-045-000011, 17 February 2010 — Doak v Turner [1981] 1 NZLR 18 — Webster v Hunt [1918] NZLR 986 — Campbell v Dominion Building Society [1932] NZLR 166. The parties had been married for some 45 years but had separated around 11 years prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The applicant brought proceedings against her former husband (the respondent) for the division of relationship property. The applicant had been living in rental accommodation since the separation as the respondent had refused to allow the former family home (which he occupied) to be sold. In determining whether to make the occupation order in favour of the applicant, the court considered the age of the parties, who were both in their seventies and retired, and the fact that the respondent had been living in the home by himself while both parties had been contributing to the outgoings such as servicing the mortgage, which the applicant had to pay for on top of a lengthy period of rental accommodation. The judge granted an occupation order in favour of the applicant. The second issue which arose was whether the court had the power to enforce the occupation order pursuant to s 79(2)(c) of the District Court Act, as if it were an order for recovery of land. Under s 27(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act, the applicant had a sole right of possession and as a flow-on from that, jurisdiction existed to enforce that order. The judge also made ancillary orders in relation to the conveyancing of the property. Judgment Date: 11 May 2020.