New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Correction of wills

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2020

BISSON & ORS v KING & ORS [2020] NZHC 2426

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2426
Court

High Court

The Court held that the reference to s108(2) was a clerical/drafting error and may be corrected to s109(1) under s31 Wills Act 2007 because correction better reflects the will-maker's intention and avoids an unworkable and potentially failed trust; the Court exercised its power under s51 Trustee Act 1956 to appoint the trustees of Maraina Kuratopi Trust in substitution for Otaraua as expedient and not prejudicial to beneficiaries; and the Court approved the proposed variation under s64A(1)(b) because the variation was consistent with the deceased's general intentions and not to the overall de…
8 Mar 2018

Will of BRUCE EDWARD MacGREGOR [2018] NZHC 353

Citation

[2018] NZHC 353
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied on the preparer's affidavit that the Will did not carry out the deceased's intentions due to clerical transposition errors; accordingly the Court exercised its s31 Wills Act 2007 power to correct the Will by replacing the incorrect words in clauses 3 and 4(b) to reflect the deceased's intention to gift to his wife with the specified gift over.
23 Aug 2017

ESTATE OF PETER CHARLES CURTIS [2017] NZHC 2026

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2026
Court

High Court

The will contained a clerical error and did not give effect to the testator's instructions; under s31 of the Wills Act 2007 the Court had jurisdiction to correct the will to reflect the will‑maker's intentions, and the specified deletions and typographical amendment were ordered; leave to proceed without notice was granted because no other person would be adversely affected.
4 Mar 2010

HITCHCOCK ESTATE HC AK CIV-2010-404-388

Citation

openlaw-75f9f991_967a_4b1d_a1ce_e50fe4084b61.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the references in both codicils to the will dated 23 February 2007 were clerical errors and that s 31 Wills Act 2007 authorized correcting those dates to 24 April 2007 because the testamentary scheme and surrounding evidence clearly demonstrated the testator intended the codicils to refer to the 24 April 2007 will and not to revive the earlier will.
10 Mar 2009

IN THE ESTATE OF MANSFIELD HC AK CIV-2008-404-7115

Citation

openlaw-d029e6d6_1aee_4369_a1ea_006fa3556e65.pdf
Court

Unknown Court

s32 could not be used because the surrounding circumstances at execution did not identify which two partners the testator intended and s32(4) bars use of the will‑maker's testamentary intentions as surrounding circumstances; however admissible evidence (solicitor's affidavit and notes) established with sufficient certainty that the testator intended the firm Wynyard Wood to be executor and s31(1)(b) authorised correction of the codicil to give effect to that intention, so the codicil was corrected to appoint the partners of Wynyard Wood at the date of death as executors.
31 Jul 2008

ARMSTRONG HC WN CIV 2008-435-95

Citation

openlaw-81358e64_610f_4bd1_9f11_9e62035f556a.pdf
Court

High Court

Evidence established the codicil mistakenly referred to the 1996 will because the drafting solicitor was unaware a 2002 will existed and the testatrix had instructed amendments to her then current (2002) will; that mistake constituted both a clerical error and meant the codicil did not give effect to the testatrix's instructions within s31, so the Court ordered the codicil corrected to reflect the 2002 will and amended paragraph reference.

New Zealand Case Law

BISSON & ORS v KING & ORS [2020] NZHC 2426

Will of BRUCE EDWARD MacGREGOR [2018] NZHC 353

ESTATE OF PETER CHARLES CURTIS [2017] NZHC 2026

HITCHCOCK ESTATE HC AK CIV-2010-404-388

IN THE ESTATE OF MANSFIELD HC AK CIV-2008-404-7115

ARMSTRONG HC WN CIV 2008-435-95