Post by Nats on Oct 5, 2016 6:53:10 GMT
Stolen from Stuff Ouch she's not going to be a happy camper 
A wealthy Christchurch businessman and his partner have failed in their latest attempt to have their 27-year long affair recognised as a de facto relationship.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the pair's request to have their case heard, upholding earlier decisions by the Family Court and High Court.
The couple's identities have been suppressed but their case consisted of arguing that they were in a de facto relationship and therefore the man's partner, known as "Ms M", had an interest in the man's relationship property from his 47-year marriage, which ended in 2007.
Why do people cheat in relationships?
Share your stories, photos and videos.
Estimates of the value of assets at stake ranged from $16 million to $22m and included a $1.95m Queenstown property and a holiday home in the Marlborough Sounds.
The lower courts rejected the argument. High Court Justice David Gendall found that while the man and woman "had a longstanding business relationship and over this time an intimate sexual relationship on the side, there was no mutual commitment to a fully shared relationship of anything more than this"
A wealthy Christchurch businessman and his partner have failed in their latest attempt to have their 27-year long affair recognised as a de facto relationship.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the pair's request to have their case heard, upholding earlier decisions by the Family Court and High Court.
The couple's identities have been suppressed but their case consisted of arguing that they were in a de facto relationship and therefore the man's partner, known as "Ms M", had an interest in the man's relationship property from his 47-year marriage, which ended in 2007.
Why do people cheat in relationships?
Share your stories, photos and videos.
Estimates of the value of assets at stake ranged from $16 million to $22m and included a $1.95m Queenstown property and a holiday home in the Marlborough Sounds.
The lower courts rejected the argument. High Court Justice David Gendall found that while the man and woman "had a longstanding business relationship and over this time an intimate sexual relationship on the side, there was no mutual commitment to a fully shared relationship of anything more than this"
