New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estrangement

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2022

BELINDA BROWN v NICHOLAS BROWN AND ROBERT NAREV AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BROWN [2022] NZCA 476

Citation

[2022] NZCA 476
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found a long‑standing, largely voluntary estrangement between the testator and the appellant, there was no evidence the testator knew of any present need by the appellant or was under a duty to make further inquiry, the testator had made substantial provision for the appellant's mother (who bears the primary obligation under s 3(2)), and the disparity of provision was rationally explained by closer relationships with other grandchildren; accordingly there was no breach of moral duty and no basis to disturb the trial judge's discretiona…
11 May 2021

BROWN v BROWN [2021] NZHC 1045

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1045
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities claimants failed to establish a breach of moral duty. Danielle did not prove the alleged sexual/physical abuse; substantial prior and ongoing inter vivos support and carefully considered testamentary provision meant the will/codicil did not fail to make proper provision for the claimants. Consequently the Court will not disturb the will beyond existing legacies and trust arrangements.
11 Dec 2019

CARSON v LANE [2019] NZHC 3259

Citation

(2019) 23 FRNZ 359
Court

High Court

The Court held the deceased breached his moral duty to his four adult children; having regard to the estate size, testamentary wishes embodied in a trust and memorandum, the needs of the children, and preservation of the testator's research/farm legacy, the minimum necessary to remedy the breach is a lump sum of NZD 1,250,000 to each child; no award to grandchildren was necessary as the children will be able to provide for them and they remain discretionary beneficiaries of the trust; percentage-based awards are inappropriate in large estates and trusts established near death must be weighed…
1 Mar 2019

KINNEY v PARDINGTON [2019] NZHC 317

Citation

[2019] NZHC 317
Court

High Court

The Court found the deceased breached his moral duty by concealing paternity, failing to provide meaningful support beyond statutory child support, tolerating and contributing to psychological harm, and providing no benefit from the family trust; given the claimant's necessitous circumstances, lack of historic benefit from the trust and the primacy of the parent-child relation, the minimum necessary to remedy the breach was 70% of the agreed estate value; estate valued at NZD 615,000 and any deduction for estate administration costs and adjustments reserved for further submissions.
9 Aug 2018

WAINE v TIGG [2018] NZHC 1976

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1976
Court

High Court

The Court held the Family Court judge correctly found a moral duty was breached, that the evidence (affidavits and disclosed documents) was sufficient to establish Keith Parker's need for maintenance, and that the discretionary awards of $100,000 to Helen Tigg and $175,000 to Keith Parker were within the available range and not plainly wrong on appeal; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
20 Aug 2009

BRADY V GOUDIE HC HAM CIV 2009-419-469

Citation

openlaw-3a55204e_3152_4c52_b43d_34371722283c.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Family Court correctly found the deceased breached his moral duty to an estranged adult daughter and was entitled under s4(1) to make an award; the $60,000 award was within the permissible range of judicial judgment given the facts and not plainly wrong; costs on appeal were awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.

New Zealand Case Law

BELINDA BROWN v NICHOLAS BROWN AND ROBERT NAREV AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BROWN [2022] NZCA 476

BROWN v BROWN [2021] NZHC 1045

CARSON v LANE [2019] NZHC 3259

KINNEY v PARDINGTON [2019] NZHC 317

WAINE v TIGG [2018] NZHC 1976

BRADY V GOUDIE HC HAM CIV 2009-419-469