RE ESTATE OF BARBARA ANNE DOORNEKAMP-WELLMAN [2022] NZHC 70

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] NZHC 70
Parties: First Applicant: William Du Preez; Second Applicant: Getta Snijders; First Respondent: Estate of Barbara Anne Doornekamp-Wellman; Second Respondent: Peter Crellan Kelly; Non Party: D M Abricossow
Court: High Court
Jurisdiction: New Zealand
Judgment Date: 2 February 2022
Procedural Posture: Unwarranted Enrichment / Urgent Without Notice Interlocutory Application (dismissed)
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Without Notice Application, Preservation Order, Discovery Against Non Parties, Settlement Under Duress, Abuse of Process, Witnessing of Wills, Power of Attorney

Probate and Wills Testamentary Promises Civil Procedure Property Law Unwarranted Enrichment Without Notice Application Preservation Order Discovery Against Non Parties +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

William Du Preez

First Applicant

Getta Snijders

Second Applicant

Estate of Barbara Anne Doornekamp-Wellman

First Respondent

Peter Crellan Kelly

Second Respondent

D M Abricossow

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Unwarranted Enrichment / Urgent Without Notice Interlocutory Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

1 Whether orders could be made without notice under r 7.23 High Court Rules
2 Whether a delivery-up or preservation order could be made against a non-party
3 Whether applicants complied with rule 7.23(3) by filing required memorandum

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to satisfy the statutory and rules-based threshold for without-notice relief (no grounds demonstrated under r 7.23, no memorandum under r 7.23(3)), relied on rules that do not permit delivery-up orders against a non-party, and did not demonstrate any evidential necessity or risk justifying preservation orders without notice; additionally the applicants’ claim appeared weak and potentially abusive of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Application dismissed
Registrar to provide a copy of this judgment to Mr Peter Kelly

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.