Bankside Barrister Sharon Chandra has appeared in the Supreme Court with Shortland Chambers Barrister Clive Elliott KC in Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä v Paul Anthony Palmer. Acting for Ms Alalääkkölä, Sharon Chandra and Clive Elliot KC have argued that copyright in artwork should not be shared as relationship property.
The appellant, Marlborough-based artist Ms. Alalääkkölä was married to the respondent, Mr. Palmer, for 20 years before their separation in 2017. During the marriage, she produced several original artworks.
The case was first brought before the Family Court in 2020, when Palmer requested the transfer of copyright for a specific list of paintings to reproduce and sell them. Alalääkkölä had no objection to Palmer keeping the paintings but she was strongly opposed to transferring the copyright.
The Family Court judge ruled that while the artworks themselves were relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, the copyrights stemmed from Alalääkkölä's personal skills, and were therefore her separate property.
Palmer appealed the decision to the High Court in 2021, where it was concluded that both the artworks and their copyrights were relationship property, subject to division. The case was then referred back to the Family Court for the valuation and division of the copyrights.
The parties are now in dispute over whether the copyrights to these artworks are classified as "relationship property" or "separate property" under the Act. If deemed relationship property, the copyrights or their value would be subject to the Act’s equal sharing regime.
"We now await the results with anticipation”, says Sharon. “Regardless of the outcome, this will be a pivotal decision for all artists in New Zealand."
Further reading
The New Zealand Herald, 21 February 2024
Hearing date 24 October 2024 case synopsis
Comment