A landmark divorce case appears to have finally been settled but the result is disappointing for women seeking greater recognition for their contribution to the running of a household, a legal expert says.
The case - known as X vs X - was a test of changes to the Property (Relationships) Act in 2002 which recognised that if one half of a married or de facto couple put their career on hold to raise a family, they might deserve better than a 50-50 split of the family assets if they later divorced, because they had sacrificed their capacity to earn well.
Mrs X had initially sought $800,000 on top of her $4 million half-share of matrimonial property when her 21-year marriage to Mr X ended in 2003, but a four-year legal battle ensued, and the case went from the Family Court to the High Court, back to the Family Court and then to the Court of Appeal, the Sunday Star Times reported.
In the end, Mrs X won $240,000 on top of the $4m. She has also been awarded interest on the amount, but her application to recover legal costs from her husband has been declined in the most recent decision, in the Court of Appeal in February.
The case sets a precedent in family law but Otago University Professor Mark Henaghan said the "comparatively little" payout was disappointing and New Zealand courts had taken a conservative approach.
Prof Henaghan said there had not been enough recognition of the advantage to the earning spouse in the decision.
"The idea of it is not only to make up for the fact that she's lost advantage but that he's had an advantage - to get 3 percent more for that is a pretty little amount."
He said in time the law might be more generously applied but Mrs X had tested her case to the limits and it was unlikely she would have the financial or emotional ability to take her case to the Supreme Court in a bid for more money.
"Mrs X may be wondering whether it has been worth it."
