Ten years in a leaky boat– lucky just to keep afloat By John Green
In 1982 Split Enz released its now famous single Six Months in a Leaky Boat being a reference to the time it took pioneers to sail to New Zealand (it had nothing at all to do with being an attack on Britain’s invasion of the Falkland Islands which caused the BBC to discourage airplay of the song in Britain during the Falklands War – it was recorded in January 1982, months before the Falklands invasion).
It has also been suggested that the lyrics are a metaphor for a relationship that could not be, the need to put our differences behind us and that there is a world to explore after ’the ship-wreck’, and to keep on trying where there’s wind in our sails.
Neil Finn’s lyrics and the sentiment embodied in the song provide a strikingly apposite segue into the relationship property story that follows.
Ms Scott and Mr Williams (not their real names) were married in 1981 and separated in 2007. Mr Williams was a successful lawyer and Ms Scott was an accountant before giving up that role to have a family. During their marriage the couple had built up a substantial pool of assets including their family home in Remuera, three commercial properties in New Lynn, a beach house in Omaha, a half share in a Fiji property and the interest in Mr Williams’ law firm. The relationship came to an end and the parties fell into dispute as to how their assets were to be apportioned on separation. Proceedings were first filed in April 2009. In 2014, Judge McHardy in the Family Court determined that Mr Williams should pay Ms Scott $850,000 under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act (the PRA). The family home and associated section in Remuera were vested in Ms Scott. In 2016, in the High Court, Faire J largely allowed an appeal by Mr Williams overturning the vesting order and reducing the s 15 award to $280,000. In 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ms Scott against Faire J’s decision, except for increasing the quantum of compensation payable under s 15 of the PRA to $470,000. That decision was then taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. The key issues to be determined by the Supreme Court were whether: • the High Court and Court of Appeal were correct in overturning the Family Court decision to vest the family home and adjoining section in Ms Scott and ordering that those properties be sold; • the valuation of Mr Williams’ law firm in the lower courts was correct; and • the amount awarded to Ms Scott for economic disparity under s 15 of the PRA was correct. In the landmark decision in Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017], the Court unanimously held that the Family Court decision to vest the family home and neighbouring section in Ms Scott should not have been overturned and the vesting order made in the Family Court was restored. The Court also found by majority (Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ) that the valuation of the legal practice reached by the Family Court should not have been overturned and, the amount of the s 15 award in favour of Ms Scott was increased to $520,000.