New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs from estate

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2023

PUBLIC TRUST v WHITE [2023] NZHC 1608

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1608
Court

High Court

Medical records, cognitive assessment scores (MoCA 15 and 17 in 2018) and a clinical certification of unfitness within days of execution established that it was more probable than not the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2019 will; no tenable challenge to capacity existed for the 2009 will, which is therefore the last valid will; the retracted allegation of undue influence was unnecessary to decide given the incapacity finding.
5 Oct 2022

the Estate of ADELAIDE JOSEPHINE LARKING [2023] NZHC 2786

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2786
Court

High Court

The Court declared the will valid under s14 because the evidence (including Family Court approval and the document itself) established the deceased's testamentary intentions, and the sole defect of having only one witness did not prevent validation; the application could proceed without notice and costs were ordered against the estate.
13 Oct 2021

BATCHELOR v GOLIGHTLY [2021] NZHC 2734

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2734
Court

High Court

The Court discharged the applicant as administrator under s 21(1) Administration Act 1969 because his permanent overseas residence materially impaired his ability to act and pending proceedings in which he is a defendant as a beneficiary created a conflict of interest; the co‑administrator's consent and absence of prejudice supported discharge; no immediate costs award was made and any costs application must be filed on notice.
24 Apr 2020

SMITH v POVEY [2020] NZHC 805

Citation

[2020] NZHC 805
Court

High Court

Removal of Ms Povey was expedient because she delayed administration by failing to progress the agreed sale since 2013, her uncompleted purchase attempts and inactivity since 2018 hindered winding up the estate and risked diminution of value (property uninsured), she did not assert a legal right to remain in occupation, and removal advancing sale and distribution of the estate was suitable, practical and efficient; accordingly Povey was removed, vacant possession ordered with a practical timeline, and costs ordered to be paid from the estate.
5 Nov 2019

DE GREGORIO v SURRIDGE [2019] NZHC 2842

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2842
Court

High Court

Costs are not to be paid from the estate because the litigation was adversarial and driven by hostility between beneficiaries; Paul Surridge must personally pay Anne Surridge scale 2B costs (no uplift) and specified disbursements; Marion Pearson must pay increased costs (50% uplift) limited to the portion of the hearing her claim occupied (10%) and specified disbursements; uniform office service fees disallowed as non-specific disbursements; other parties' costs lie where they fall.
12 Apr 2019

WELLWOOD v WELLWOOD [2019] NZHC 801

Citation

[2019] NZHC 801
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's imprisonment (which impedes performance), the testator's subsequent documented preference against the defendant acting, the absence of an effective alternative nominated by the parties, and the degree of animosity risking prejudice to beneficiaries, it was expedient under s21 to remove the defendant as executor and appoint an independent solicitor as sole executor to ensure impartial and professional administration of the estate.
30 Apr 2018

THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA ELIZABETH ELLEN FREDATOVICH [2018] NZHC 869

Citation

[2018] NZHC 869
Court

High Court

Affidavits filed by the caveator demonstrated opportunity for undue influence, evidence of the testator's susceptibility and sufficiently unexpected changes from the codicil to justify a full inquiry; consequently the applicant must apply for probate in solemn form and related Family Protection Act claims may be joined in the same proceeding; costs reserved.
24 Apr 2018

ROSALIND SHEILA RAMSAY v PUBLIC TRUST [2018] NZHC 785

Citation

[2018] NZHC 785
Court

High Court

The court concluded the handwritten will dated 23 February 2015 is invalid and therefore granted probate in solemn form in respect of the will dated 18 September 2000; costs were ordered to be paid from the deceased's estate.
25 Nov 2016

MUMBY v MUMBY [2016] NZHC 2836

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2836
Court

High Court

Court found the testatrix knew and approved her will and that Brett did not exert undue influence; a modest Family Protection award to Neil was warranted; costs awarded: Brett $59,701.81 (10% uplift) with 50% to be met from the residuary estate and the remainder by Neil and Cherie personally; Neil awarded $12,545 (from estate) for family protection success; Glenda awarded $26,492.40 (from estate) with a 10% reduction; specified disbursements were ordered from the estate.
29 Feb 2012

BAKER V BAKER HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000167

Citation

openlaw-77ca2138_ea32_4c70_8ee2_ef1e8dcc56ef.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the parties' negotiated settlement as set out in their joint memorandum, granted the orders in terms of paragraph 5 of that memorandum, extended time under s9 Family Protection Act 1955 to permit the claim, and ordered that the reasonable solicitor/client costs of all counsel be paid from the estate funds; leave to bring the matter back on seven days' notice was reserved.