Legal Research
Cases
Rose v Rose

Rose v Rose

Case [2007] NZSC 100 6 December 2007

Relationship Property

Property Valuation

Family Law Act

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 73/2007
[2007] NZSC 100

BETWEENJAMES ARTHUR ROSE

Appellant

ANDKAREN DIANE ROSE

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:C R Carruthers QC and M J Radich for Appellant

S Moran for Respondent

Judgment:6 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(1)Whether the appellant's interest in A W Rose & Sons is relationship property.
(2)Whether the relevant increase in value of Poplars is relationship property.
(3)Whether the relevant increase in value of Cloverlea is relationship property.
(4)Whether the dates at which real property and debt were valued were inappropriately inconsistent.
(5)(If necessary) Whether the award under section 17 was properly made.

Solicitors:
Radich Law, Blenheim for Appellant
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Rose v Rose [2007] NZSC 100
Case: [2007] NZSC 100
Decision Date: 6 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, James Arthur Rose (the appellant) appealed against a decision of the High Court, which had determined various matters concerning the division of property between the appellant and Karen Diane Rose (the respondent). The dispute arose from the dissolution of their marriage and involved the classification and valuation of certain properties and debts. The appeal was heard by Blanchard, Tipping, and McGrath JJ, who considered the legal issues presented by the appellant's grounds for appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain properties and the increase in their value constituted relationship property, as defined by the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the appellant's interest in A W Rose & Sons, and the increases in value of two properties, Poplars and Cloverlea, were relationship property. Additionally, the court had to consider if the valuation dates for the real property and debt were appropriately consistent and if the award under section 17 of the Act was properly made.

The Supreme Court found that the appeal was valid and granted leave to appeal on the specified grounds. The court examined the nature of the relationship property and the applicable valuation dates. It was determined that the appellant's interest in A W Rose & Sons was indeed relationship property, as it was acquired during the relationship and was used for the benefit of both parties. The court also found that the increases in value of Poplars and Cloverlea were relationship property, as they resulted from contributions during the relationship. Regarding the valuation dates, the court held that the inconsistency did not significantly affect the outcome. Lastly, the court upheld the award under section 17 of the Act, finding it was appropriately made.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the appeal was allowed on the grounds specified, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The court directed that the High Court reassess the division of property between the parties, taking into account the classification of relationship property and the valuation dates.

Orders