Injustices seen in matrimonial law

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33803, 27 March 1975, Page 2

Injustices seen in matrimonial law

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 26. The Auckland District Law Society is concerned about the uncertainty in New Zealand’s law of matrimonial property which splits assets of a broken marriage between the husband and wife.

In a paper, prepared by the society’s public issues committee, the society points out the difficulties of uncertainty and unpredictability in the law and the differences between judges’ rulings on matrimonial cases.

The paper, sent to the Minister of Justice (Dr Finlay), calls on the public to consider the law which has farreaching effects on the whole of society. Tlte law determines the financial position of the parties of a broken marriage, and in the long term, the status of women and the future of the institution of marriage.

The Matrimonial Property Act 1963, which remains in force today, provides for the judge or magistrate to decide matrimonial property disputes individually and proportion assets fairly even though the wife may have made no cash contribution to the assets. ‘lnjustices’ The law is a useful instrument of justice but some injustices remain, according to the society. “Different judges have different ideas of what so’cial policy is fair, some markedly favouring wives and some husbands,” the society says. “This is no criticism of the judges because the extremely general terms of the statute leave them no alternative but to apply their own values, but it is unfortunate when the outcome of a case depends on which judge the parties happen to strike.” ‘Roundabout’

The paper also points out difficulties resulting from the act’s roundabout approach. Although the act confers substantive rights on wives it does not really come out and say so, but merely pretends to" be laying down rules to determine disputes, the society says. The society is concerned about the lack of action on a report made by a special committee set up to consider matrimonial property in 1969 and presented to the Minister of Justice in 1972. The committee concluded there was a need to enact as soon as possible a single, clear and comprehensive statute to

regulate matrimonial property.

It recommended a system whereby all the assets acquired by the parties since marriage, except inheritances or gifts, should be considered altogether and a fair apportionment between husband and wife determined.

The society says that despite the urgency in the committee’s report nothing further has been officially heard of a new matrimonial property statute. It also describes an amend-

ment to the Joint Family Homes Act enacted last year as curious and bizarre because it appears to disregard the approach of 'examining each individual case in favour of dividing the assets between spouses in a fixed percentages. The effect of the statute is that if a property settled as a joint family home is sold or if the settlement is cancelled, the proceeds belong to husband and wife equally even though the husband or wife provided all the money. The society points out that the husband or wife may have made the house joint property because of the potential saving in death duty. This session Commenting on the paper today, Dr Finlay said a Matrimonial Property Bill should be introduced in Parliament early this session. Dr Finlay said he had on several occasions accepted the need for such a law but its preparation had been complex.