New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Family protection act 1955 claims

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2022

SANDRA CHIN (PAYNE) v STEVEN PAYNE as the executor of the estate of Donald Gordon Payne [2022] NZHC 3095

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3095
Court

High Court

The 2009 wills were corresponding but not mutual wills; the constructive trust claim failed because plaintiff's contributions were outweighed by the substantial benefit of long rent‑free occupation and there was no unconscionable conduct by the testator creating an institutional trust; however the deceased breached his moral duty under the Family Protection Act by disinheriting the plaintiff after a long estrangement caused by the deceased and the court must remedy that breach by ordering transfer of the Johnsonville property to the plaintiff and a conservative cash award of $600,000 from the…
3 Jun 2022

CHAMBERS v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1307

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1307
Court

High Court

The Court declined the plaintiff's broader discovery application because only documents relevant to the pleaded issues are discoverable and the Second Defendant's detailed financial position is not relevant to the pleaded institutional constructive trust or Testamentary Promises claims and, given the size of the estate, is not material to the Family Protection assessment; earlier wills and instructions are relevant and should be provided if held by a party (NZGT), but no broader discovery order against the Second Defendant was granted.
18 Dec 2020

MATTHEWS v PHOCHAI [2020] NZHC 3455

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3455
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the Family Court judge erred by failing adequately to account for deductions from the estate (costs, tax, administration), the claimant's own available assets, and the parties' contracting out agreement and financial independence; the appropriate discretionary award to remedy the breach of moral duty was reduced from $1,000,000 to $750,000.
4 Jun 2014

RULE and BELCHER v RULE and COUPE as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of MURIEL GWENDOLINE RULE [2014] NZHC 1263

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1263
Court

High Court

The defendant solicitor's answers were insufficiently specific and on relevant points (moral duty advice, effect of life interest, discussions with the deceased, asset values, executor change and powers of attorney) must be supplemented because those facts are relevant to testamentary capacity and undue influence and necessary to allow expert evidence to be properly instructed; irrelevant objections were rejected and the court directed specific further answers and set a timetable, awarding costs to the plaintiffs for the application.
9 Nov 2012

HODGKINSON V HOLMES AND HALCROW AS ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE DAWN DESIREE UNDERWOOD HC AK CIV 2012-404-3635

Citation

openlaw-261ae3f8_0242_417b_8683_99eb3e5e783e.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal because the affidavit evidence relied on to justify striking out the Family Protection Act and s49 claims did not meet the requisite threshold; material factual disputes existed about whether a final distribution had in fact occurred on 10 December 2010 and those disputes required testing and cross‑examination, so the strike‑out was premature and the Family Court orders were set aside and the matters remitted for hearing.
22 Sept 2010

DYVEKE VIGDIS ELIZABET RELPH V THE PUBLIC TRUST AND ANOR CA284/2009

Citation

openlaw-71194469_b760_45c4_b6d3_2f60b4dc7767.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was granted because the interrelationship of the two decisions created confusion about the relevant appeal date, the applicant acted promptly once the position was clear, the delay did not prejudice the respondents, and the proposed appeal was not hopeless; conditions were imposed requiring prompt prosecution of the appeal by 29 October 2010.
13 Mar 2009

PUBLIC TRUST V PUBLIC TRUST HC AK CIV 2008-404-3717

Citation

openlaw-ed615bdf_a9e0_4cef_b6c9_e29e12450f58.pdf
Court

High Court

Where there is no evidential basis that potential claimants will apply and the facts do not constitute a 'clear case' under s 4(4), an executor/administrator is not obliged to notify potential Family Protection Act claimants (including grandchildren); accordingly the Public Trust was not directed to notify the grandchildren.

New Zealand Case Law

SANDRA CHIN (PAYNE) v STEVEN PAYNE as the executor of the estate of Donald Gordon Payne [2022] NZHC 3095

CHAMBERS v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1307

MATTHEWS v PHOCHAI [2020] NZHC 3455

RULE and BELCHER v RULE and COUPE as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of MURIEL GWENDOLINE RULE [2014] NZHC 1263

HODGKINSON V HOLMES AND HALCROW AS ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE DAWN DESIREE UNDERWOOD HC AK CIV 2012-404-3635

DYVEKE VIGDIS ELIZABET RELPH V THE PUBLIC TRUST AND ANOR CA284/2009

PUBLIC TRUST V PUBLIC TRUST HC AK CIV 2008-404-3717