New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adequacy of provision

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2015

LEIGH-MACKENZIE v PASCOE & ANOR [2015] NZHC 2547

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2547
Court

High Court

The Court approved the negotiated settlement as appropriate, vested specified household chattels and a 50% interest in 10 Shaw Place in Leigh-Mackenzie under s 33(c) Property (Relationships) Act, and directed trustees under s 64 Trustee Act and executors to transfer specified trust and estate assets to David McLean (or his nominee) to give effect to proprietary estoppel and constructive trust claims and the agreed settlement, having regard to the protection of minor beneficiaries and the avoidance of protracted litigation.
31 Jul 2012

JOAN V MARY AND CHRISTINE AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES HC DUN CIV 2011-412-000214

Citation

openlaw-e930b083_3356_417b_9583_563438badad0.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found the 10% legacy to the plaintiff was inadequate given proven parental sexual abuse and failure of maternal protection; increased the appropriate provision to 20% of the estate (an additional 10%), but no further payment was ordered because the plaintiff had already received the equivalent amount following settlement with Mary; court found a breach of fiduciary duty by executors in distributing the estate in the face of a reasonable potential claim but mitigated that breach because of applicant delay and procedural choices, and therefore made no following orders though would have be…
24 Nov 2008

FEARON V THE PUBLIC TRUST HC AK CIV 2008-404-4465

Citation

openlaw-b7b91dfa_e00c_4082_b318_2c87e058fd0f.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove a breach of the deceased's moral duty: the Judge reasonably balanced the undenied long‑term benefits the appellant received from living at home (financial and non‑financial) against the later sacrifices, noted the modest estate and competing claims, and correctly required and relied upon the absence of sufficient evidence quantifying detriment or need.
10 Aug 2005

KENYON AND KENYON V JCLOUGH AND ORS CA CA106/04

Citation

openlaw-c8a4ca04_9d38_4f16_9483_267ef7e64c06.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that relief under the Family Protection Act was available because the testatrix had recognised a moral obligation to her daughter but that attempt miscarried due to a mistake about the size of her estate (notably undisclosed indebtedness); however the High Court had overreached in seeking broad equalisation across decades of inter vivos and testamentary transactions, so the proper remedy was to increase the daughter's pecuniary legacy to $150,000 while leaving other clauses intact.

New Zealand Case Law

LEIGH-MACKENZIE v PASCOE & ANOR [2015] NZHC 2547

JOAN V MARY AND CHRISTINE AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES HC DUN CIV 2011-412-000214

FEARON V THE PUBLIC TRUST HC AK CIV 2008-404-4465

KENYON AND KENYON V JCLOUGH AND ORS CA CA106/04