Alal��kk�l� v Palmer - [2024] NZCA 24

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA760/2021
[2024] NZCA 24

BETWEEN	SIRPA ELISE ALALÄÄKKÖLÄ Appellant
AND	PAUL ANTHONY PALMER Respondent

Hearing:	9 March 2023
Court:	Collins, Katz and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	C L Elliott KC and S P Chandra for Appellant B A Fletcher and E-J M Tucker for Respondent
Judgment:	21 February 2024 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time is granted for filing the appeal.

BWe answer the approved questions of law on appeal as follows:
(1) Are the Copyrights “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Yes.
(2) If the Copyrights are property, how should they be classified in terms of the PRA?
The Copyrights should be classified as relationship property.

(3)If the Copyrights are property, how should they be treated in terms of the PRA?
The Copyrights should remain in Ms Alalääkkölä’s exclusive legal ownership, with Mr Palmer receiving a compensatory adjustment from other relationship property to ensure an equal division of relationship property.

CThe assessment of an appropriate compensatory adjustment is remitted to the Family Court for determination.
D The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Katz J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction

Background

Key facts
The Family Court decision
The High Court decision

Is copyright “property” for the purposes of the PRA?

The issue
Ms Alalääkkölä’s submissions on appeal
Discussion

Are the Copyrights separate property or relationship property under the PRA?

The issue
Classification of property under the PRA
The Family Court decision
The High Court decision
Submissions on appeal
Ms Alalääkkölä’s artistic skills and qualifications
Future commercialisation of the Copyrights
The business of producing and selling Ms Alalääkkölä’s artworks
The interaction between the Copyright Act and PRA
Conclusion

How should the Copyrights be treated under the PRA, to ensure an equal division of relationship property?

The issue
The Family Court decision
The High Court decision
Submissions on appeal
Discussion

Costs

Result

Introduction

This case raises a novel issue, that has not previously been considered by the New Zealand courts. Specifically, how should copyright in artistic works created by one spouse during a relationship be classified for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) when the relationship ends?
The appellant, Sirpa Alalääkkölä, is an artist who has created many original artworks (the Artworks) during her 20-year marriage to Paul Palmer. Many of the Artworks were sold during the relationship, providing the main source of income for the family. Others were retained by the parties and are currently in the possession of the Family Court, pending final division of the relationship property. The present dispute, however, does not relate to the ownership or division of the Artworks. Rather, the key issue is whether the copyrights in the Artworks (the Copyrights) are relationship property or Ms Alalääkkölä’s separate property.
In the Family…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alal��kk�l� v Palmer and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 24
Decision Date: 21 February 2024 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns the novel issue of how copyright in artistic works created by one spouse during a relationship should be classified for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) when the relationship ends. Sirpa Alalääkkölä, an artist, created many original artworks during her 20-year marriage to Paul Palmer, many of which were sold during the relationship, providing the main source of income for the family. The dispute does not relate to the ownership or division of the artworks, but whether the copyrights in the artworks are relationship property or Ms Alalääkkölä's separate property. The Family Court found that the copyrights were Ms Alalääkkölä's separate property. On appeal to the High Court, Isac J found that the copyrights were relationship property. Ms Alalääkkölä now appeals to the Court of Appeal, having been granted leave to do so by the High Court. The Court of Appeal answers the approved questions on appeal as follows: (a) The copyrights are "property" for the purposes of the PRA. (b) The copyrights should be classified as relationship property. (c) The copyrights should remain in Ms Alalääkkölä's exclusive legal ownership, with Mr Palmer receiving a compensatory adjustment from other relationship property to ensure an equal division of relationship property. The assessment of an appropriate compensatory adjustment is remitted to the Family Court for determination. The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

Orders