BONES v WRIGHT [2013] NZHC 1922

BONES v WRIGHT [2013] NZHC 1922

The High Court found the Family Court judge erred in focusing on comparisons of financial positions and in failing to limit analysis to whether the testatrix breached her moral duty to her daughter; applying the correct legal principles to the facts the deceased's provision of a four-ninth residuary share (approx. $300,000) was adequate for the daughter's proper maintenance and support, so no breach was established and the Family Court decision granting further provision was set aside.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 1922
Parties
Appellant: Deborah Jane Bones; Respondent: Janet Wright
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Family Protection Act 1955 / High Court Rehearing Appeal From Family Court; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Adjudicated
Outcome
Leave to appeal out of time granted; appeal allowed; Family Court judgment of 25 February 2013 set aside
Legal Topics
Family Protection Act 1955, Moral Duty of Testator, Testamentary Provision, Appeal Procedure, Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Family Law Succession Estate Law Civil Procedure Family Protection Act 1955 Moral Duty of Testator Testamentary Provision Appeal Procedure +1 more

Case Brief

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Jane Bones

Appellant

Janet Wright

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Family Protection Act 1955 / High Court Rehearing Appeal From Family Court; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Adjudicated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the deceased breached the moral duty owed to the applicant under the Family Protection Act 1955
  3. 3 If a breach existed, whether the Family Court's orders for further provision were correct and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the Family Court judge erred in focusing on comparisons of financial positions and in failing to limit analysis to whether the testatrix breached her moral duty to her daughter; applying the correct legal principles to the facts the deceased's provision of a four-ninth residuary share (approx. $300,000) was adequate for the daughter's proper maintenance and support, so no breach was established and the Family Court decision granting further provision was set aside.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal out of time granted; appeal allowed; Family Court judgment of 25 February 2013 set aside

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time is granted
  • The appeal is allowed and the Family Court judgment of 25 February 2013 is set aside