New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Family protection claims

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2023

LEEMING v LEEMING [2023] NZHC 85

Citation

[2023] NZHC 85
Court

High Court

Court concluded there was a proper basis for an interim distribution because the estate was large enough to meet competing FPA claims and costs, the applicant would likely receive a substantial share on final distribution, and applicant showed hardship and need to fund litigation; however the requested sum ($750,000) was excessive and risked fuel for protracted litigation, so the court ordered equal interim distributions of $350,000 each to the three beneficiaries to be even-handed and proportionate.
5 Dec 2022

GLASS v GLASS [2022] NZHC 3233

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3233
Court

High Court

Leave under s88(2) Property (Relationships) Act 1976 was granted because there are reasonable prospects that dispositions to trusts may be set aside or compensated under ss44/44C PRA thereby enlarging the deceased's estate, and the interested party has a credible Family Protection Act claim; the 2017 Deed does not conclusively bar an FPA claim.
5 Nov 2021

A v D AND E LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE Z TRUST [2021] NZHC 2997

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2997
Court

High Court

The court found the plaintiffs proved abuse; Z owed fiduciary duties extending into the time of the transfers because his prior breaches created enduring vulnerability and legitimate expectations; Z breached those duties by transferring property to a trust to defeat plaintiffs' claims; the trustees are imputed with Z's knowledge and therefore liable in knowing receipt; the transferred property is held on constructive trust for Z's estate and trustees must account.
6 Jul 2021

WAKEFIELD v WAKEFIELD [2021] NZHC 1664

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1664
Court

High Court

The defendant had no reasonably arguable defence and failed to oppose the uncontentious claims; the plaintiff, as sole executor and registered proprietor, was entitled to immediate possession and to mesne profits at the market rent of $575 per week from 26 March 2021 until possession is obtained; costs awarded on a 2B basis.
20 Jul 2020

POLLOCK v POLLOCK [as to costs] [2020] NZHC 1751

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1751
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the litigation did not originate in the testator's fault, the inter vivos gifts and trust structuring were lawful and deliberate, there were not persuasive grounds to treat the Judea Valley Trust as liable for the plaintiff's costs, and accordingly the defendants were entitled to costs on a 2B basis as awarded; the plaintiff's applications that the trust pay his costs and that defendants' claims be refused or reduced were declined.
25 Mar 2020

POLLOCK v POLLOCK [2020] NZHC 648

Citation

[2020] NZHC 648
Court

High Court

The Court found both plaintiffs had arguable claims under the Family Protection Act (moral duty breached) but there were no assets in the deceased's estate because the impugned transfers were valid and not procured by undue influence or unconscionable conduct; claims under Law Reform (Testamentary Promises), remedial constructive trust, unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary/professional trustee duties failed. Consequently plaintiffs could not obtain awards from the estate; trustees (Cheryl and CLM Trustees) were not removed though trustees must treat Steven's children as discretionary b…
10 Nov 2017

TALBOT v TALBOT [2017] NZCA 507

Citation

[2017] NZCA 507
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was no breach of moral duty by the deceased parents to the appellant; the provision left (circa NZD 1.05 million) was adequate for proper maintenance and support given estate size, testamentary intention to preserve farm for son, inter vivos contributions and absence of economic need; indemnity costs to Rachel were appropriate as she was a necessary party whose inheritance could be affected, and the costs were not plainly unreasonable.
28 Jul 2017

COURTENEY v PRATLEY [2017] NZHC 1761

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1761
Court

High Court

The Court found that Joan breached her moral duty to her son Steven and granddaughter Klaudia by deliberately and wrongfully excluding them from her 2011 will, that her exclusion was influenced by an irrational deterioration in mental state and therefore her reasons were to be disregarded, and that the appropriate remedy was to award the estate's New Zealand assets (sale proceeds of 10 Burnetts Road and trust funds) totalling $513,205.57 plus any interest and chattels at the property to Steven (thereby subsuming Klaudia's claim); ordinary estate administration costs of $19,025.49 are to be de…
9 Sept 2015

MAHON v MAHON [2015] NZHC 2171

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2171
Court

High Court

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, fixed costs on the Category 2B scale, declined to award increased costs despite a late settlement offer, ordered costs against the plaintiffs in favour of John Mahon with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar, and directed that any dispute over the executors' indemnity costs be referred to Associate Judge Christiansen.
27 Aug 2014

A P NAWISIELSKI v M D NAWISIELSKA [2014] NZHC 2039

Citation

[2014] NZFLR 973
Court

High Court

Applicant had arguable standing to lodge a s42 notice derivatively because special circumstances existed (executor was sole beneficiary and conflicted/refused to pursue claims), which displaced the presumption under r15.23; once an independent executor was appointed the special circumstances ceased and discontinuance was appropriate; respondent entitled to costs limited to procedural non‑compliance by applicant ($2,189 awarded).