23 Apr 2021
The contested will, when read with the contemporaneous note and supported by affidavits, clearly expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions despite non‑compliance with the statutory execution requirements; therefore the Court exercised its s14 power to declare the document valid, subject to the condition that the applicants personally honour certain bequests from the earlier will.
29 May 2012
Court found plaintiffs rendered qualifying services and the deceased made promises linked to those services; having weighed the statutory factors and the deceased's expressed intentions the Court awarded Rose NZ$1,000,000 and awarded Susan NZ$250,000 (declining to vest the BHP shares in Susan), with costs to be borne by the estate and leave reserved to the Public Trustee to apply to fix party costs.
13 Feb 2012
The solicitor's contemporaneous notes and email constituted documents that 'appear' to be a will and, together with supporting evidence of testamentary intention, satisfy s14; a draft prepared after death does not qualify as such a document; because certain persons were materially affected the Court will not make a declaration without seeking their consent or reasonable evidence of attempts to obtain it.
14 Sept 2010
The Court exercised its s14 Wills Act 2007 jurisdiction and declared the October 2008 document to be a valid will because the document and corroborating affidavit evidence established that it embodied the deceased's testamentary intentions despite non‑compliance with the two‑witness requirement, and there was no unrepresented person entitled to be heard who would be disadvantaged by validation.