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 Reference was made to Te Aka Matua o te Ture/Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommendation that s 182 should be repealed, the Law Commission having described this as a “relic from the past.”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  NZHC 2612
- Little v Little  NZSC 70
- Little v Little  NZFC 3532 (Judge Burns) [FC judgment]
- Little v Little  NZCA 65 (Courtney and Collins JJ) [CA judgment]
- Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust)  NZSC 30
- Ward v Ward  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