Attempts to force her husband to the negotiating table in a relationship property dispute failed when the High Court ruled Relationship Property Act notices could not be registered against sixty-six different properties owned by two companies her husband controlled. Registration would have the effect of blocking sales, with potential to force husband Mohamed Turkmani into negotiations with estranged spouse Salwa Mlouk.
Real estate owned by BW Rentals Ltd and BW (2004) Ltd had a market value in excess of $45 million as at late 2020. These properties are heavily mortgaged. Mr Turkmani is sole director and shareholder of the two companies.
The couple came to New Zealand from Syria, separating in 2020 after sixteen years marriage. The High Court was told attempts to reach a relationship property settlement have been unsuccessful. Ms Mlouk says her husband has threatened to run down his New Zealand business interests and move to Sydney. Relationship Property Act notices of claim were registered against title to the sixty-six properties owned by her husband’s companies. Ms Mlouk says relationship money was used to buy company assets, entitling her to share in their value.
Justice van Bohemen ordered the notices of claim be removed from all property titles. Mr Turkmani is sole director and shareholder of the companies, but his ownership interest is in the company shares he owns. He has no direct ownership interest in the sixty-six properties; they are assets of his two companies. At law, both BW Rentals and BW (2004) are legal persons separate from Mr Turkmani. The fact Mr Turmani has absolute control over each company’s operations does not mean the companies’ assets become his own, Justice van Bohemen ruled.
Ms Mlouk’s claim in respect of relationship money used for business purposes was restricted to a claim against the value of shares held by her husband in BW Rentals and BW (2004).
Turkmani v. Mlouk – High Court (26.07.21)
21.127