Two of them were married, with a third ruled to be in de facto relationships with both. Photo: Photo / 123RF
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a polyamorous relationship could be broken into twosomes and considered by the Family Court in a property relationship dispute.
The decision relates to a property dispute between a man, Brett, and two women, Lilach and Fiona, who lived at a Kumeu property valued at over $2 million for 15 years.
Lilach separated from Fiona and Brett in November 2017, and Brett and Fiona subsequently separated in early 2018. Fiona, whose name the property is in, still lives at the farm in Auckland.
In 2019, Lilach asked the Family Court to determine the parties' respective shares in the Kumeu property. The Family Court referred the case to the High Court, which found the Property Relationships Act could not apply to the threesome.
Lilach and Brett appealed, and the Court of Appeal ruled the two-person relationships within the threesome could be considered by the Family Court in the property relationship dispute.
Brett and Lilach are married, and the court said Brett and Fiona, and Lilach and Fiona, could both be considered de facto relationships. All three lived together at the one property, and the justices said the relationships did not need to be exclusive to be considered by the courts.
Fiona wished to appeal this in the Supreme Court. In a majority decision the court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal.
In the decision, Justice Stephen Kós pointed to the two-person relationships within the threesome.
"All multilateral relationships are inherently also collections of bilateral relationships. Exact numbers and mechanics are less important, for the act, than the fact that the people comprising the relationships lived together in a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship," he said.
Justices Susan Glazebrooke and Ellen France disagreed with the other judges, saying to divide a polyamorous relationship in this way was artificial.
"They considered the High Court was correct to conclude that the Family Court had no jurisdiction," said Justice Kós.
Glazebrooke and France said applying the Property Relationships Act in this way should be left to Parliament, and that the majority decision may result in potential complexities and uncertainties.
