Having
given up her own career to support her husband in his career as a medical
specialist, a former nurse was awarded seventy per cent of their net assets
after their 26 year relationship came to an end. The extra payment over and above her
statutory entitlement to fifty per cent of relationship net assets amounted, in
dollar terms, to thirty per cent of her husband’s current annual income.
A departure from the
50/50 rule in the Property (Relationships) Act is allowed where the division of
functions within a family enhances the income-earning potential of one while
reducing that of the other. Any division
of functions must be a real and substantial cause of the economic disparity.
The Jacks met in 1982
when Mr Jack was earning $100,000 a year as a registrar at Waikato
Hospital. She was a single mother caring
for a three year old daughter while working as an enrolled theatre nurse. The High Court was told she sold her flat and
investment property in Hamilton and put the net proceeds of $40,000 towards a
home in the capital when the family moved to Wellington. Over the subsequent two decades, two sons
were born and the family lived variously in Sydney, London, Norwich and back in
Wellington as Mr Jack advanced his specialist medical skills. After initially continuing to work part-time,
Mrs Jack then concentrated on supporting her husband’s demanding career. In her words: he did not have to come home
and cook a meal; he did not have to tend to the childrens’ daily needs, make lunches,
attend school functions or arrange play dates; he seldom attended their
sporting commitments. When the couple’s
relationship came to an end in December 2008, net relationship assets amounted
to $1.9 million. Over the previous five
years, Mr Jack’s annual income ranged from $800,300 to $1.06 million per year.
In the High Court,
Justice Goddard ruled that Mrs Jack’s role in the home justified a departure
from the usual 50/50 rule for the division of relationship property. Her support for her husband while he studied
for his specialist exams, her role as a homemaker and primary caregiver for the
children while he established his practice, and her assistance with his
networking and at times in his practice all provided a foundation for his successful
career.
She said Mrs Jack
sacrificed the opportunity to advance her own career as a nurse as a result of
her role at home. After separating she
found work as a receptionist earning just over $25,000 a year. Justice Goddard said Mrs Jack should not be
criticised for not attempting to requalify as a nurse after the marriage came
to an end. Her lack of recent experience
would count against her.
Jack
v. Jack – High Court (1.07.14)
14.033