AlalÄÄKkÖLÄ v Palmer - [2025] NZSC 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 22/2024
[2025] NZSC 9

BETWEEN	SIRPA ELISE ALALÄÄKKÖLÄ Appellant
AND	PAUL ANTHONY PALMER Respondent

Hearing:	24 October 2024
Court:	Ellen France, Williams, Kós, Miller and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	C L Elliott KC, S P Chandra and W H Ranaweera for Appellant Q A M Davies and E-J M Tucker for Respondent
Judgment:	6 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe answer the questions of law as follows: copyrights are property for purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and they may be relationship property.
BThe appeal is dismissed. We direct that the proceeding be remitted to the Family Court to decide the value and distribution or sale of the artworks and copyrights in them.
CThe appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

Sirpa Alalääkkölä and Paul Palmer were married in 1997 and separated in 2017. She is an artist, and her paintings were the family’s principal source of income. At separation there was a stock of unsold paintings that she had created during the relationship. We will call these “the artworks”.
This appeal is concerned principally with the copyrights in the artworks. It is not in dispute that the artworks themselves—the physical paintings—are relationship .
The first issue on appeal is whether any monetary value should be assigned to the copyrights that were fixed in the artworks when Ms Alalääkkölä created them. She that copyright is not property at all for purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA); alternatively, it is separate property.
The second issue concerns the classification for valuation purposes of the artworks and the copyrights in them. She says that the artworks fall into four categories, in only two of which do the physical works have any value. She ‍also says that in only one of those two categories do the copyrights have any value.
Initially Mr Palmer wanted to retain some of the artworks. He also said that he intended to set up a business to exploit the copyrights in them by reproducing and selling copies on his own account. His position now is that he accepts Ms Alalääkkölä should retain the copyrights and he should be credited with his share of their value in the distribution of other relationship property.
We understand that each party wants to acquire the other’s interest in the family home, where we understand Ms Alalääkkölä has been living since the separation.
In the Family Court, Judge Grace adopted an agreed division of the artworks which left most of them with Ms Alalääkkölä.[1] He held that all the copyrights were her separate property.[2]
[1]Alalaakkola v Palmer [2020] NZFC 1635 [FC judgment] at [37].
[2]At [23].
Ms Alalääkkölä did not appear at the hearing of Mr Palmer’s appeal before Isac J.[3] She has explained that she was affected by stress. The Judge held that copyright in the artworks was…

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 AlalÄÄKkÖLÄ 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: [2025] NZSC 9
Decision Date: 6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AlalÄÄKkÖLÄ v Palmer was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with the appeal dismissed and the matter remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings. The primary dispute involved the classification and valuation of copyrights in artworks created during the marriage of Sirpa Elise AlalÄÄKkÖLÄ and Paul Anthony Palmer. The legal issues focused on whether copyrights in the artworks constituted property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) and, if so, whether they should be classified as relationship property. The Court of Appeal had previously held that the copyrights should be classified as relationship property. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that copyrights are property for the purposes of the PRA and can be relationship property. The Court further directed that the Family Court should determine the value and distribution or sale of the artworks and the associated copyrights, ensuring an equal division of the property. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent $15,000 plus usual disbursements, with an allowance made for second counsel.

Orders