LegalResearchFoundation

In 2001, the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act introduced s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 into New Zealand’s property regime. The purpose of this section was to rebalance any significant economic disparities that existed between the parties’ incomes and living standards as a result of the division of functions in the relationship, and that equal sharing of relationship property would not rectify. Section 15, therefore, was designed to reduce the hardship that equal sharing could produce by recognising the full effects that the partnership had had on parties’ respective earning capacities and, accordingly, place them in a more substantively equal position at the end of their relationship. Yet how far has s 15 achieved its original purpose? To answer this question, this article examines the scope and operation of this section by reviewing 60 cases that have substantively applied s 15 and also sets out findings from a small-scale qualitative project which involved interviews with legal practitioners working in this field.

The New Zealand judiciary is supported by the processes of judicial appointment, judicial discipline and continuing professional development. All three processes need to function so as to best maintain the independence of the judiciary. That independence is potentially threatened by the involvement of the Attorney-General in the current appointment and discipline processes. A judicial commission, with judicial appointments, judicial discipline and judicial professional development committees, could provide these support functions for the judiciary independently of the executive. In promoting the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, the present government has not taken the opportunity to establish a judicial commission. This article challenges the wisdom of that decision.

This article explores the issue of committee members’ personal liability to third parties, the body corporate, and individual owners under both the Unit Titles Act 2010, and at general law. The extent of this potential liability is significant and acts as a disincentive to service on body corporate committees. The law in this area is out of kilter with comparable areas of legal liability in both New Zealand and overseas strata title jurisdictions. This is a concern as bodies corporate cannot function without owner participation. Appropriate amendments to the Act are proposed and practical suggestions are made as to how the risk of liability being incurred by committee members can be minimised.