7 Apr 2017
RULE v RULE [2017] NZHC 672
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 672
- Court
- High Court
The court held that Lesley's proposal provides just provision for the plaintiffs and adequately discharges Muriel's moral duty: Lesley must pay each plaintiff 25% of the current value of Muriel's half-interest within six months of attaining age 65, retain a life interest in the remaining 50%, and retain any trust funds; the Calderbank approach was rejected on the facts and costs should lie where they fall because the related capacity and undue influence claims were not frivolous though they failed on the merits.