New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disentitling conduct

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2018

FITZGERALD v MILLS [2018] NZHC 2480

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2480
Court

High Court

Court found that (a) a testamentary promise was proved that Doreen would enable Arnold to acquire Rowan Road (a right of first option on concessionary intra-family terms rather than an outright gift); (b) Arnold provided services beyond ordinary family expectations in reliance on that promise; (c) the 2011 sale and subsequent forgivenesss by attorneys were unlawful under PPPRA s107 and cannot be validated given the attorneys' motives and conduct; (d) executrices must recover the 2011 advances as debts owed to the estate to the extent necessary to meet liabilities and awards; (e) the claimant…
24 Jun 2016

AB v RT AND ST [2016] NZHC 1399

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1399
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award indemnity costs; applying High Court costs principles it found the case warranted a schedule 3C costs award of $110,763 (not including disbursements) to the plaintiff, to be borne by the active major beneficiaries (RT, ST and YZ), and awarded an additional $2,000 for the costs argument.
5 Feb 2015

ASTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED v KERVUS MC LIMITED [2015] NZHC 92

Citation

(2015) 15 NZCPR 718
Court

High Court

Kervus held a caveatable equitable interest but Aston neither consented to the sale nor was shown to be disentitled by conduct; critically, Aston failed to prove on the evidence that it had in fact exercised its power of sale because there was no evidence conditions to the asserted sale had been satisfied or waived — therefore the caveat could not be removed.
2 Dec 2014

ARTHUR v STANHOPE WORKSHOP LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 3046

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3046
Court

High Court

The court allowed two days for the statement of claim, two memoranda, and half a day for the hearing, calculating 2B scale costs at $13,930; it declined to reduce costs for offers made about costs on the day of hearing (r 14.7(f)(v)) or for alleged disentitling conduct, and ordered the first, second and third defendants jointly and severally to pay $13,930 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
18 Jul 2014

RIPPEY v HUNT [2014] NZHC 1694

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1694
Court

High Court

No breach of moral duty was established: appellant had received substantial lifetime benefits (free accommodation, intermittent payments and significant cash gifts from his father which he largely spent for himself) and the exclusion was deliberate and explained in the will; accordingly the High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to refuse further provision (alternative finding: cannabis activity could disentitle).
22 May 2014

BRAIN v HARWOOD [2014] NZHC 1092

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1092
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the Family Court's finding that the testatrix breached her moral duty to Alan (Clive) Harwood by failing to take adequate account of his significant contributions to the farm, by giving undue weight to his name change and related family rift, and by not recognising erosion of an earlier specific bequest; the Court held the $700,000 award (inclusive of the $180,000 bequest) was a lawful exercise of discretion and not plainly wrong, and dismissed the appeal.
11 Feb 2013

GOUNDEN v LOVEGROVE REALTY LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001414

Citation

openlaw-9b23e502_c895_44fb_ae44_d17f81f7cd2b.pdf
Court

High Court

The appellant, having succeeded on appeal, was entitled to scale costs at High Court Rules category 2B and reasonable disbursements; submissions about misconduct in other jurisdictions did not justify denying costs and were matters for those jurisdictions, not this Court.
13 Jun 2012

GLASS V PUBLIC TRUST HC AK CIV-2011-404-1976

Citation

openlaw-49c437fe_4098_4d8b_a2ad_a1d767b625fc.pdf
Court

High Court

Claims dismissed because the small estate and the clear, dominant moral duty to the granddaughter (and her children) together with substantial lifetime financial benefits to Terry (gifted section and undervalue purchase) and limited contact/provision from Kevin meant there was no breach of the willmaker's moral duty; Terry's 2006 conduct reinforced justification for exclusion and further provision would impose an unreasonable burden on the intended primary beneficiary.
14 Dec 2007

JOHN BEVAN-SMITH V RAUPO PUBLISHING (NZ) LIMITED (FORMERLY REED PUBLISHING (NZ) LIMITED CA CA57/07

Citation

openlaw-5904317a_ce0d_4b7e_9eb7_78daeb21c5ee.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because, applying r 43 and established authorities, the grant is an indulgence and, viewed in the round, the appellant's conduct and the merit of the appeal did not justify further indulgence; accordingly the appeal is deemed abandoned under r 43(1).