A recent High Court case has been returned to the Family Court Judge to consider whether a relationship that was longer than three years should be considered a relationship of short duration anyway.
The appellant argued that the Family Court Judge erred by not considering a "short duration" classification despite the relationship lasting over three years. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating the Judge was not obligated to consider this classification as it wasn't raised during the initial proceedings. However, the High Court acknowledged the possibility of such a classification and referred this specific question back to the Family Court for determination.
The Court said:
...the Family Court is a specialist jurisdiction and is uniquely placed to make decisions under the Act. More importantly, the Judge in this case heard evidence for two days and made credibility findings in relation to the witnesses. Given her findings on the duration of the relationship (only two months more than the three-year threshold), Judge Partridge is in the best position to assess whether it would be just to treat the de facto relationship as one of short duration in all the circumstances.
What is a relationship of short duration?
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 generally defines a relationship of short duration as one lasting less than three years. However, a relationship exceeding this duration can still be deemed short under specific circumstances. This article refers to van Heerden v Barrett [2024] NZHC 3539.
Even if a de facto relationship lasts longer than three years, the Court has a discretion to classify it as a relationship of short duration under Section 2E(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. This allows for a different division of relationship property based on contributions rather than the usual equal sharing.
Factors influencing short duration classification for relationships over three years:
.svg){kind=small}