Lassnig v Zhou - [2025] NZSC 116

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 65/2024
[2025] NZSC 116

BETWEEN	BARTHOLOMAEUS ROLAND LASSNIG Appellant
AND	QIAN ZHOU First Respondent QIAN ZHOU AND BARTHOLOMAEUS ROLAND LASSNIG AS TRUSTEES OF THE LASSNIG FAMILY TRUST Second Respondents

Hearing:	4 March 2025
Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	D Zhang and E Tie for Appellant V A Crawshaw KC, L L La Mantia and T M McGoldrick for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondents
Judgment:	15 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed. The orders made by the Court of Appeal as to the resettlement of the Trust stand.

BThe appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
The facts	[8]
Section 182 of the Act	[14]
The judgments below	[22]
The Family Court	[23]
The High Court	[25]
The Court of Appeal	[32]
The case for the parties	[42]
Did the Court of Appeal approach the matter correctly?	[44]
Outcome	[49]
Assessment in this case	[58]
Conclusions	[77]
Result	[79]

Introduction

The parties, Qian Zhou and Bartholomaeus Lassnig, married in August 2012 and separated in late July 2015. Shortly after they were married, they settled the Lassnig Family Trust (the Trust). The Trust acquired three properties. The purpose of the Trust was to provide for the parties’ retirement, as well as providing them with a home to live in. It is common ground that the Trust is a nuptial settlement for the purposes of s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (the Act). Under s 182(1) the Family Court may vary the terms of a nuptial settlement where the parties’ marriage or civil union comes to an end.
After the dissolution of their marriage, Ms Zhou’s application for resettlement of the Trust under s 182 of the Act was dealt with by the Family Court. Ms Zhou’s financial contributions to the Trust were significantly greater than those of Mr Lassnig. The parties’ non-financial contributions to the Trust, and to the marriage, were treated by the Court as roughly equal. The couple had no children together although each of the parties has an adult son from previous relationships. In considering the division of relationship property, the parties were agreed that their respective contributions by way of loans to the Trust were to be returned to them as separate property, and that a sum should be quantified and paid to Mr Lassnig as part of resettlement. Against this background, the Family Court ordered resettlement of the Trust on the basis of an equal split of net equity as between the parties.[1]
[1]Zhou v Lassnig [2022] NZFC 2747 (Judge Maude) [FC judgment].
Ms Zhou appealed from that decision to the High Court. The High Court allowed Ms Zhou’s appeal and ordered resettlement of the Trust under which Mr Lassnig was to receive 40…

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.

Continue reading Lassnig v Zhou

Details

AGLC: Lassnig v Zhou [2025] NZSC 116
Case: [2025] NZSC 116
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed an appeal by Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig against an order of the Court of Appeal that resettled the Lassnig Family Trust, a nuptial settlement, in favour of Qian Zhou. The Trust was established by the parties shortly after their marriage in 2012 and acquired three properties over the following 15 months. The marriage ended in 2015 and the parties separated in July of that year. Zhou applied to the Family Court for resettlement of the Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. The Family Court ordered resettlement on an equal split of net equity between the parties. Zhou appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal and ordered a 60/40 split in favour of Zhou. Lassnig appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and dismissed Zhou's cross appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered resettlement on an 80/20 split in favour of Zhou. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the second stage of the inquiry required under s 182 but the outcome reached by the Court of Appeal was correct. The appeal was dismissed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal as to the resettlement of the Trust stood.

Orders