ORMSBY v VAN SELM [2016] NZHC 228

ORMSBY v VAN SELM [2016] NZHC 228

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised were not questions of law of public or private importance warranting a further appeal but were challenges to the High Court's discretionary application of settled legal principles; the High Court correctly stated and applied the law and there was no realistic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 228
Parties
Appellant: Alan De Lisle Ormsby; First Respondent (executor): Jake Van Selm; Second Respondent: Jacqueline Ann Van Selm; Third Respondent: Janine Alexandra Ormsby
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under the Family Protection Act 1955 / High Court Decision on Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Family Protection Act 1955, Leave to Appeal, Quantum of Award, Breach of Moral Duty, Construction of Wills, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Estate and Succession Civil Procedure Appeal Law Family Protection Act 1955 Leave to Appeal Quantum of Award Breach of Moral Duty +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan De Lisle Ormsby

Appellant

Jake Van Selm

First Respondent (executor)

Jacqueline Ann Van Selm

Second Respondent

Janine Alexandra Ormsby

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under the Family Protection Act 1955 / High Court Decision on Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court awarded more than necessary to remedy the breach of moral duty
  2. 2 Whether the award went beyond the minimum necessary to remedy the breach
  3. 3 Whether the High Court effectively rewrote the will

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised were not questions of law of public or private importance warranting a further appeal but were challenges to the High Court's discretionary application of settled legal principles; the High Court correctly stated and applied the law and there was no realistic prospect of demonstrating an error of law or principle sufficient to justify the Court of Appeal's intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Preliminary view that respondents are entitled to costs on a 2B scale