New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revocation of wills

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2021

Estate Bricknell [2021] NZHC 1463

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1463
Court

High Court

The South African will contained an unqualified revocation clause which on its face revoked the earlier New Zealand will in full; the 27 November 2017 email did not constitute a valid codicil or satisfy s11 formalities and therefore could not revive or limit the revocation under s17; because the South African will was not ambiguous its plain language governs and extrinsic evidence (the email) could not be used to limit the revocation; the Registrar's refusal to grant probate of the New Zealand will limited to New Zealand assets was correct and the without‑notice review must be dismissed; any…
12 Dec 2019

OFFICER v HUNTER [2019] NZHC 3269

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3269
Court

High Court

The 13 and 16 November 2016 documents did not constitute valid testamentary dispositions because they referred back to a revoked earlier will and did not clearly create binding testamentary changes; all persons with potential claims had been notified and consented to recognition of the 8 December 2011 will as the deceased's last valid will, and accordingly the Court ordered probate proceed on the basis of the 2011 will.
12 Dec 2019

McNEISH v McARTHUR [2019] NZHC 3281

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3281
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2002 mirror wills reflected an honorary mutual expectation and not a binding agreement not to revoke; there was insufficient cogent evidence of an ancillary non-revocation pact and therefore no basis to impose a constructive trust or to defeat the validly executed 2013 will; the plaintiffs' claim failed.
18 Dec 2018

Re: Estate J A Young v [2018] NZHC 3397

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3397
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence and corroborative lay evidence established that Jean Antoinette Young lacked testamentary capacity in February 2016, rendering the 2016 will invalid and leaving the 2006 will effective; accordingly the court granted probate of the 2006 will in common form.
29 Apr 2016

HENSON v GANDAR [2016] NZHC 841

Citation

[2016] NZHC 841
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the court found that Mr Henson and Ms Dornan agreed when they made the 1998 identical wills that those wills would not be changed without mutual agreement (including not to change after the first death); therefore the trustees/executor of Ms Dornan's estate are subject to a supervening equitable responsibility/constructive trust to distribute the estate in accordance with the mutual wills rather than the later inconsistent testamentary dispositions.
9 Dec 2015

PARSONS v WILSON [2015] NZHC 3133

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3133
Court

High Court

The 21 May 2014 letter disposes of the deceased's property, was proven to be in his handwriting, and was supported by cogent factual evidence of the deceased's relationships and prior handwritten amendments indicating intent; therefore it appears to be a will and expresses testamentary intentions within s14 Wills Act 2007, justifying a declaration of validity, revocation of the prior 1989 will, and appointment of the applicant as executor.
30 Apr 2014

WHITE v WHITE [2014] NZHC 865

Citation

[2014] NZHC 865
Court

High Court

The 2013 draft did not evidence finalized testamentary intentions of the deceased and therefore could not be declared valid under s 14; consequently the 21 December 2007 will remained in full force and probate of that will was granted.
26 Jul 2010

LEES HC AK CIV 2010-404-3834

Citation

openlaw-8db50c88_3067_4ee6_8c39_9e9741754fc6.pdf
Court

High Court

The revocation clause in the Thai Will must be interpreted in light of the testator's intention and the instrument's terms; because the Thai Will explicitly applies to property in Thailand and instructs proceeds be transferred to the New Zealand trust, the revocation language is limited to Thai property and does not revoke the New Zealand Will as to property outside Thailand; accordingly probate of the New Zealand Will should be granted to the named executors.
8 Dec 2009

WELLS & OR V WELLS & OR HC AK CIV-2008-404-006379

Citation

openlaw-1ab20dd0_1e22_446b_9d71_baf63ea93d05.pdf
Court

High Court

The handwritten document and diagram did not evince the requisite intention to partially revoke or vary the earlier duly executed will; the wording was conditional and ambiguous, the diagram was inconsistent with the memorandum and lacked formal testamentary status, and the extrinsic evidence was insufficient to establish a codicil, so probate was granted only for the will dated 10 February 2002.
24 Jul 2009

PIACUN V PURCELL AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2007-419-1052

Citation

openlaw-96c02b0e_9832_4553_ac44_e96ee0399c46.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying the strict standard of proof required in testamentary capacity matters, the court was satisfied on the evidence (including expert affidavits) that the testator lacked testamentary capacity from March 2005, so the later 2005 wills could not validly displace the 13 May 2003 will; accordingly probate of the 13 May 2003 will is granted.