In a decade long relationship, model Kylie Bax and fashion photographer Spyridon Poros lived variously in Los Angeles, New York, Athens, Sydney and Cambridge; living costs met by a family trust: the Goldeye Trust, controlled by her parents. Their marriage over, Mr Poros laid claim to properties purchased with Goldeye funds as relationship property.
Investigations revealed their 2005 marriage was invalid; Mr Poros was a bigamist, still married at the time he married Ms Bax in Las Vegas. Under New Zealand law, their enduring de facto relationship was governed by relationship property rules, as if they were married. Battle lines were drawn in the Family Court. While full details of their dispute remain concealed by Family Court anonymity, the trial judge commented neither Ms Bax nor Mr Poros were entirely reliable or credible in their evidence. Earnings during their relationship were described as modest at best. Their expansive lifestyle was funded variously by sale of Ms Bax’ assets and by loans from Goldeye Trust.
On appeal to the High Court, evidence was given of a Bax family arrangement in 2000 which saw legal restructuring of Matamata horse stud Blandford Lodge resulting in two family trusts, both controlled by Ms Bax’ parents, each owning a half share of Blandford. Ms Bax was named as beneficiary of one trust, Goldeye Trust, and also as creditor having lent $1.5 million to Goldeye. Funding sources for purchases of properties in Auckland, Los Angeles, New York, Athens and Cambridge became critical in determining which assets, and any subsequent profits on resale, were relationship property or were instead Ms Bax’ separate property. Poor record keeping clouded the issue.
Justice Jagose ruled there was no reason to overturn rulings made by the Family Court. In particular, a ruling Goldeye’s half interest in a $3.25 million property in Auckland purchased prior to Ms Bax’ 2005 marriage was not relationship property and a further ruling $2.3 million borrowed subsequently from Goldeye Trust by Ms Bax was to be treated as a relationship debt since evidence indicated the funds were used for relationship purposes.
While the value of relationship property awarded Mr Poros by the Family Court was not made public, the High Court was told Mr Poros had rejected pre-trial settlement offers in excess of the amount awarded.
Poros v. Bax – High Court (7.07.20)
20.119