you're reading...
Relationship Property, s. 182, Trusts

Relic from the past lives on

The application for leave in Little v Little (see A Little guidance on s 182) has been denied by the Supreme Court. the prime thrust of the appeal was that the trust in question was not a nuptial settlement. Reference was made to Te Aka Matua o te Ture/Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommendation that s 182 should be repealed, the Law Commission having described this as a “relic from the past.” The applicant also submitted that more guidance is needed with regard to the test set out by the Supreme Court in Clayton as to what might constitute “connection or proximity” between a settlement and a marriage.

The Supreme Court was not satisfied that the case was sufficiently exceptional to justify a leap frog to the Supreme Court given that the Court of Appeal declined leave; and that both the Family Court and High Court had accepted that the requisite connection (nexus) existed.


  • Little v Little [2020] NZHC 2612
  • Little v Little [2021] NZSC 70
  • Little v Little [2020] NZFC 3532 (Judge Burns) [FC judgment]
  • Little v Little [2021] NZCA 65 (Courtney and Collins JJ) [CA judgment]
  • Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust) [2016] NZSC 30
  • Ward v Ward [2009] NZCA 139
  • Te Aka Matua o te Ture/Law Commission Review of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976/Te Arotake i te Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZLC R143, 2019) a


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: