AlalÄÄKkÖLÄ v Palmer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 22/2024
[2024] NZSC 56

BETWEEN	SIRPA ELISE ALALÄÄKKÖLÄ Applicant
AND	PAUL ANTHONY PALMER Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	C L Elliott KC and S P Chandra for Applicant E M Tucker and Q A M Davies for Respondent
Judgment:	9 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Alalääkkölä v Palmer [2024] NZCA 24).

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in the answers the Court gave to the questions of law before the Court as set out below at [1].

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The first two questions of law addressed by the Court of Appeal and the answers given are as follows:
(a)Are the Copyrights “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act)?
Yes.
(b)If the Copyrights are property, how should they be classified in terms of the Act?
The Copyrights should be classified as relationship property.
The Court of Appeal then determined that the Copyrights should remain in Ms Alalääkkölä’s exclusive legal ownership, with Mr Palmer receiving a compensatory adjustment from other relationship property to ensure an equal division of relationship property. The grant of leave extends to the question of what orders should be made consequential upon the answers given to the questions set out above at [1].

Solicitors:
Zone Law Ltd, Wellington for Applicant
Gascoigne Wicks, Blenheim for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the classification and division of copyrights as relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the copyrights in question were indeed relationship property and should remain in Ms Alalääkkölä’s exclusive ownership, with Mr Palmer receiving a compensatory adjustment from other relationship property to achieve an equal division. The appeal centred on the legal classification and division of these copyrights.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its determination that the copyrights constituted relationship property under the Act, and if so, how they should be classified and divided. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the copyrights were relationship property and should remain with Ms Alalääkkölä, with Mr Palmer receiving a compensatory adjustment from other relationship property. The appeal questioned the correctness of these rulings and the consequential orders.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and extended the appeal to include the question of what orders should be made following the Court of Appeal’s determination. This decision indicates that the Supreme Court recognised the significance of the legal issues raised concerning the classification and division of copyrights as relationship property. The grant of leave suggests that the Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, warranting a full hearing to determine the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established