22 Nov 2021
The Court balanced the plaintiff's potential entitlement (likely to be one half of the net proceeds) and the need to retain funds for costs and potential liabilities and concluded that releasing $150,000 of the frozen proceeds to the defendants would leave adequate security for the plaintiff's potential PRA claim and costs; accordingly the freezing order was varied to permit release of $150,000.
6 Jul 2021
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.
12 Feb 2021
The Court granted the vesting order under s 52(1)(h) because the chain of succession established the present beneficiaries (Coleman two-thirds; Guy one-third), both beneficiaries consented, and substantial practical and legal obstacles made ordinary transfers impracticable; therefore it was expedient and for the benefit of the trust to vest the land in the identified beneficiaries to enable them to deal with the property.
6 Aug 2020
Award 2B scale costs as the appropriate and reasonable contribution: the matter was not complex, did not involve exceptional circumstances, and the respondents' claim for 3C uplift for three items was not justified; indemnity costs were not awarded despite a Calderbank offer. The respondents are awarded $11,343 on a 2B basis plus reasonable disbursements approved by the Registrar.
22 Jun 2018
Clauses 4 and 5 create trusts rather than mere powers because the will uses mandatory trust language ('UPON TRUST','my trustees to dispose'), provides a survivorship obligation after the limited management interest, names multiple trustees and contains indicia of trustee roles (exoneration and professional fees), and contains no gift over; those trusts fail for uncertainty of objects because the will gives no ascertainable criteria or identifiable class for distribution of proceeds after disposal, so the trusts are invalid and summary judgment for defendants could not be granted.
15 Sept 2017
The claim was struck out because the plaintiff lacks legal standing to pursue claims against the defendant for assets of the deceased: rights to sue vested in an executor or administrator (none appointed) and beneficiaries cannot bring such claims or validly elect division or effect standing by purported assignment under the PRA; accordingly the proceedings are untenable and must be dismissed.
24 Feb 2016
Because the s75 notice was validly served, the applicants complied with ss75(1) and (2), and the respondent failed to commence or prosecute proceedings with all due diligence within the statutory three month period, the Court properly exercised its power under s75(3) to make an order barring the respondent's claim.
28 Oct 2015
The Court consolidated the related Auckland and Wellington proceedings because they arise from the same events and concern the same rights to relief; the Court granted a restraining order because there was an arguable case that the grant of administration was obtained without disclosure and the balance of convenience and protection of the estate required preserving the status quo pending substantive determination; undertakings alone were inadequate given the circumstances.
31 Jul 2015
s44 is limited to ensuring compliance with an order for an inventory and account and is not a vehicle for broad challenges to executor decisions or for demands for every underlying document; the application was declined because the orders sought exceeded the scope of s44, the applicants delayed unreasonably in seeking relief after the respondents provided documents and a comprehensive November 2013 letter and payment, and most information had already been provided.
17 Apr 2015
Application for pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20 was denied because the applicant could formulate the proposed claim to replace the executors under Administration Act s 21 without the documents sought; moreover the applicant is ineligible to apply under s 88 PRA as she is not a personal representative, so discovery for that purpose could not be granted; discovery, if necessary, can be obtained after the claim is filed.