The family was based in Abu Dhabi with husband Steve Gunn employed as an Emirates pilot when marriage with Anna came to an end. She subsequently challenged, without success, a relationship property agreement leaving Steve with nearly 94 per cent of relationship assets.
The High Court was told Anna returned to New Zealand in 2011 with their two children after the relationship soured.
They agreed to split 50/50 both the value of their Abu Dhabi property (estimated to be worth about $150,000 net of its mortgage debt) and cash totalling some $30,000.
Steve did not have to split the value of his vehicles and a boat, all of which were mortgaged. He kept the value of his Emirates superannuation. He took over financial responsibility for all their joint debts.
He agreed to pay Anna $3000 a month (net of tax) for the support of their two children until the youngest, then aged six, reached eighteen and to also pay their school costs.
Anna later challenged this agreement as inadequate. A relationship property agreement can be set aside if it would cause a ‘serious injustice.’
The High Court was told Steve had faithfully met his maintenance obligations, and more, with Anna having access to his bank account through until 2016. Family holidays overseas were funded through use of Steve’s Emirate travel privileges. He provided support for the family when Anna fell seriously ill.
Anna claimed she received inadequate legal advice when signing the relationship property agreement. It should be re-opened, she said.
Justice Jagose ruled the lawyer provided adequate advice as to the effect and implications of the agreement. She was not asked to advise on what Anna’s rights might be if she did not sign.
The effect of the agreement may not be as one-sided as Anna claims, Justice Jagose speculated. Steve agreed to take on sole responsibility for mortgages on their relationship assets. There was no independent evidence as to the extent of these mortgages.
Gerring-Gunn v. Gunn – High Court (19.09.23)
23.157