SAMWAYS v REID [2020] NZHC 2270

SAMWAYS v REID [2020] NZHC 2270 [2 September 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECIV-2020-412-059[2020] NZHC 2270UNDER the Family Protection Act 1955ANDIN THE MATTER of the estate of JOHN GOLDSWORTHYBETWEEN JULIE ANN SAMWAYS (neeGOLDSWORTHY), LORRAINE ANNGOLDSWORTHY, PETER JOHNGOLDSWORTHY, TINA ANN BASTIN(formerly GRANT GOLDSWORTHY),DEBRA ANN GOLDSWORTHY and NEILJOHN GOLDSWORTHYPlaintiffsAND MARGARET JOAN REID and ADRIANJAMES REIDDefendantsHearing: On the papersCounsel: M J Robinson and F Iqbal for PlaintiffsJudgment: 2 September 2020JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTERThis judgment was delivered by me on 2 September 2020 at 12.30pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy Registrar2 September 2020[1] In this proceeding, the six plaintiffs are the surviving children of the late JohnGoldsworthy (the deceased), who died on 24 May 2019. The deceased waspredeceased by the mother of the plaintiffs, Doreen. The deceased was divorced fromDoreen in 1980.[2] The deceased married Dulcie Goldsworthy in 2008, having commenceda relationship with her in 1985. Dulcie brought to that relationship three sons, Peter,Dean and Glenn Maxwell.[3] The deceased left the residue of his estate to Margaret Reid and Adrian Reidwho he also appointed as executors and trustees. The deceased gave a separate gift ofthe contents of his workshop to Alistair Rutherford, Robert Watson and David Blair.[4] The plaintiffs seek directions that the proceedings be served on MargaretJoan Reid and Adrian James Reid in their capacity as executors and beneficiaries, andsuch is obviously appropriate. The application seeks an order that they be served byway of their solicitor, Mr Holloway of Downie Stewart. I am not prepared to makesuch an order. If Margaret Reid and Adrian Reid have agreed to Mr Hollowayaccepting service then that is sufficient, but in the absence of such an agreement, I amnot prepared to make what amounts to an order for substituted service on the basis ofthe material provided.[5] It is appropriate that the recipients of the deceased's workshop be served. Theworkshop contents are apparently worth a little over $3,000. Whether the plaintiffswish to disturb the gift of the workshop contents is a matter for them to consider, butnonetheless it is appropriate that Alistair Rutherford, Robert Watson and David Blairbe served.[6] As to Dean, Peter and Glenn Maxwell, again it is appropriate that they beserved.[7] Accordingly, orders are made in terms of paras (a), (b) and (c) of theapplication dated 24 August 2020, save as regards service on Mr Holloway in relationto Margaret Reid and Adrian Reid.[8] The application then refers to "Further Orders or Directions as the Court seeksfit".[9] The statement of claim refers to the applicants' late sibling, Stuart Goldsworthywho died some years ago and left three children. I am not told whether the otherplaintiffs have children.[10] It is not clear to me what, if any, directions are sought in respect of the serviceof grandchildren or their representation. Given the estate is relatively modest, I directthat any children of the named plaintiffs be represented by the plaintiffs who are toinform their children of this proceeding.[11] It would be appropriate for Stuart Goldsworthy's children, KarinaGoldsworthy, Matthew Goldsworthy and Craig Goldsworthy to be served, and I sodirect.__________________________________Associate Judge LesterSolicitors:Turner Hopkins, Auckland