...ADDRESS TO THE FAMILY COURT CONFERENCE 2011 Copthorne Hotel, Oriental Bay, Wellington Friday 5 August 2011 * Sian Elias Separate Property – Rose v Rose Introduction I should have know n bet t er t han t o give in t o t he Principal Judge’ s blandishment s t o agree t o speak t o you on t he subject of w hat I persist in t hinking of as “ mat rimonial propert y” . In t he f irst place, one of t he great successes of t he Family Court has been t hat appellat e court s rarely see relat ionship propert y cases. 1 The Supreme Court , in t he seven years of it s exist ence, has seen only one w here division of asset s w as direct ly in issue. 2 Perhaps t hat is just as w ell. The comment at or on my paper, Prof essor Peart , has said of Rose v Rose t hat t en judges st ruggled “ in vain” t o make sense of t he legislat ion. 3 Since half of t hose w ere judges of t he Supreme Court , it does not say much f or our ef f ort . Now Prof essor Peart is very kind and (w it h Margaret Briggs) says t hat is because t he Act is cont radict ory and lacking in coherent principle. 4 But , alt hough I have some quest ions about t he legislat ion myself , I am not quit e as severe on t he Act . So if t he Supreme Court didn’ t manage t o convince in Rose v Rose, I t hink w e should accept f ault . I am, how ever, conscious t hat I am out of my dept h in t his t opic. And I know t hat I am addressing expert s. At t he out set , I w ish t o acknow ledge t he w ork you do...
Words: 8506 - Pages: 35