PHOTO: Two of them were married, with a third ruled to be in de facto relationships with both. Photo: Photo / 123RF RNZ
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that a polyamorous relationship could be divided into individual twosomes and be subject to consideration by the Family Court in a property dispute. The case involved a property disagreement between a man named Brett and two women named Lilach and Fiona, who had cohabited in a property in Kumeu worth over $2 million for a period of 15 years.
propertynoise.co.nz to launch real estate industry recruitment site
In November 2017, Lilach separated from both Fiona and Brett, while Brett and Fiona separated in early 2018. Fiona, whose name is on the property, still resides at the farm in Auckland. In 2019, Lilach approached the Family Court to determine the respective shares of the parties in the Kumeu property. However, the Family Court referred the case to the High Court, which concluded that the Property Relationships Act did not apply to the threesome’s situation.
Lilach and Brett appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the individual relationships within the polyamorous arrangement could indeed be considered by the Family Court in the property dispute. The court recognized the de facto relationships between Brett and Fiona, as well as between Lilach and Fiona, even though all three had lived together at the same property. The justices emphasized that the relationships did not require exclusivity to be eligible for consideration by the courts.
Fiona sought to challenge this ruling in the Supreme Court. However, in a majority decision, the court dismissed her appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Justice Stephen Kós, in his decision, highlighted the presence of two-person relationships within the polyamorous arrangement. He stated, “All multilateral relationships are inherently also collections of bilateral relationships. Exact numbers and mechanics are less important for the act than the fact that the people involved lived together in a marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship.”
Justices Susan Glazebrooke and Ellen France dissented from the majority, arguing that dividing a polyamorous relationship in this manner was artificial. They agreed with the High Court’s position that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. Glazebrooke and France believed that applying the Property Relationships Act in such cases should be a matter for Parliament and expressed concerns about potential complexities and uncertainties resulting from the majority’s decision.
propertynoise.co.nz to launch real estate industry recruitment site