Analysing the application of s 15, Elias CJ and the majority determined that the assessment of disparity is a broad one and it must be considered in light of provisions in the PRA that treat all contributions made by both partners to the relationship as equal. Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ held that where there has been a relevant division of roles, any disparity will be assumed to have resulted from that division, at least in a long-term relationship. As noted by Arnold J at [293] and [294], if there has been a division of functions along traditional lines, it should be assumed that the division of functions caused the disparity as it was for the benefit of both parties, restricted the non-career partner’s income-earning ability and enhanced the career partner’s earning ability. The Court awarded Ms Scott a significantly greater share of the couple’s relationship property assets to recognise the fact that her living standards would otherwise be significantly lower than Mr Williams’ following separation as a result of the division of functions during the relationship. Two years later in Scott v Williams [2019] NZSC 80 [25 July 2019] the Supreme Court dismissed an application by Ms Scott for an extension of time for applying for leave to appeal against two earlier costs judgments. There is nothing particularly exceptional about the leave to appeal proceedings, but what is of note and what should be of concern to any party to a relationship property dispute is that this dispute has been ongoing for ten years. For ten tortuous years no doubt, these parties whose details, dealings and financial positions will have been subjected to a high degree of scrutiny have been trapped in a nightmare that must have impacted on and affected their personal lives and sensibilities, not to mention their finances as no dispute resolution process comes without cost, none the least High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court litigation – even for a lawyer! On 23 July 2019 Justice Minister Andrew Little tabled the Law Commission’s final report on its review of the PRA which sets out how relationship property should be divided when a relationship ends by separation or death. The report notes that one of the principles of the PRA is that matters should be resolved as inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice. This means that division of property at the end of a relationship should be just and the process for achieving that should be efficient. While there is a paucity of hard data, the research and the