New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Testamentary promises act 1949

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2021

NELSON v CODILLA [2021] NZHC 1958

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1958
Court

High Court

On the evidence the court found a de facto relationship existed historically but had ended by 12 September 2005 (contracting‑out with another caregiver) so PRA claims were out (and s24 extension denied); however claimant proved a sufficient nexus and promise under the Testamentary Promises Act based on long term services and repeated assurances and was awarded 65% of the estate as reasonable relief; medical and solicitor evidence established testamentary capacity for the 12 May 2016 will and no persuasive evidence of undue influence was proved so probate was not recalled and the 2016 will sta…
10 Oct 2014

IRELAND v GRANT [2014] NZHC 2496

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2496
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not meet the high threshold for a second appeal: the High Court did not commit an error of law in its approach to deference (it applied Austin Nichols and Kacem and exercised judgment on the weight to be given to the Family Court), there was no reversible shift in the onus of proof, and no question of sufficient public or private importance was demonstrated to justify the costs and delay of a further appeal.
14 Mar 2014

BRISTOW v SMITH [2014] NZHC 474

Citation

[2014] NZHC 474
Court

High Court

The Court held it has jurisdiction to direct that any provision made under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 be satisfied from funds that would otherwise be paid to a creditor of the estate; having found for the applicant on the interlocutory question and no special reasons to depart from the usual rule, the applicant was entitled to costs fixed now under r 14.8; those costs are payable personally by the unsuccessful creditor (Barnabas) rather than from the estate; costs were fixed on a category 2B scale at $6,766.
16 Aug 2013

JAMES PATRICK GOLLAN v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2013] NZHC 2094

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2094
Court

High Court

The applications were dismissed because the applicants lacked standing in practical terms — there was no realistic prospect of a surplus for the bankrupts or creditors after secured debt, litigation costs and Assignee remuneration — and the Official Assignee had reasonably investigated and lawfully exercised his commercial discretion to refuse assignment of the TPA and FPA causes of action.

New Zealand Case Law

NELSON v CODILLA [2021] NZHC 1958

IRELAND v GRANT [2014] NZHC 2496

BRISTOW v SMITH [2014] NZHC 474

JAMES PATRICK GOLLAN v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2013] NZHC 2094