[1] Changing family structures in New Zealand grew the necessity for an amendment to the seemingly outdated relationship definition in 2001.

[1] This may include, but is not limited to socio-economic status, de facto relationships, civil unions, division of labour, marriage and native land issues.

[1] The proceeding thus deals with general to more specific issues relating to the division of property but ultimately aims to maintain legal equity and 'fairness' in ultimatum.

[1] There has been much academic criticism regarding the effectiveness of the act in cases of agriculture, native land and the general 'effectiveness' of the 2001 amendment.

While the amendment balances gender position and re-defines relationship to broaden the individuals involved with property, some inconsistency regarding de facto pairings has been cited.

The policy of the legislative landscape maintains itself under the guise of equal sharing and the definition and place of de facto relationships within the act therefore somewhat contradicts this.

[3] The de facto couple's place outlined in the amendment therefore incites conflict with the core directive of the Property (Relationships) Act.

[3] Therefore, the basis of this criticism stems from the contradiction of the act's purpose in maintaining equal sharing for both parties of a relationship against the lack of compensation in de facto pairings.

[5] Upon the couple's separation each plaintiff was owed equal from the incurred debts but the value of the farm had significantly increased in the period.

[3] Section 182 of the act therefore allowed Mrs Ward to provide compensation, and the court ordered 50% of the trust to be resettled separately.

[5] Had the claimants maintained a de facto relationship, section 182 would not have been lawful and Mrs Ward would not have received her perceived compensation and redress.

[3] The O v S case presents a result in which a de facto relationship sees a seemingly more unfair order over property ownership.

This case is commonly cited due to its example of de facto relationship status remaining inconsistent with the 2001 Amendment Act's core policy.

[3] Compensation was still ordered however, the judge allowed the husband the ability to raise the funds on the basis of past business evidence.