New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Executor appointment

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2023

ESTATE OF HILARY ANN CLAY [2023] NZHC 1726

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1726
Court

High Court

The unsigned draft will, viewed with the solicitors' contemporaneous notes and affidavits, the deceased's email confirming key dispositions, and the solicitors' oral reading with the deceased's confirmations, plainly expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions; failure to sign resulted from rapid decline in health rather than change of mind or undue influence, so the Court declares the document valid under s 14 Wills Act 2007.
17 Feb 2021

WAKEFIELD v WAKEFIELD [2021] NZHC 203

Citation

[2021] NZHC 203
Court

High Court

Because the respondent was given opportunity and clear directions to participate, failed to file evidence or attend, and prior procedural steps had been taken, the Court exercised its discretion to grant probate to the applicant as sole executor and to order the respondent to pay costs out of her share of the estate.
4 Feb 2021

ESTATE OF HORNE [2021] NZHC 83

Citation

[2021] NZHC 83
Court

High Court

The unsigned and undated draft will was declared the deceased's last will because there was cogent and corroborated evidence that it reflected the deceased's testamentary intentions (instructions to solicitor, confirmation to proposed executor, solicitor's affidavit that the draft reflected instructions) and no contrary will or claimant was identified, and leave to proceed without notice was justified.
20 Jun 2019

PERRY v JACK [2019] NZHC 1427

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1427
Court

High Court

The unexecuted document was declared a valid will because the court was satisfied it appeared to be a will, was created in New Zealand and the evidence demonstrated it reflected the deceased's testamentary intentions, and procedural preconditions were met.
21 Jun 2018

2b61b753-42b4-4064-b6c8-d7e2bd3ac267.pdf

Citation

openlaw-9370215a_784f_4dbc_bf60_0b1c3cf0f800.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the handwritten document accurately recorded the deceased's testamentary intentions and that the without‑notice application complied with HCR 7.23; accordingly the document was declared part of the valid will and the applicants were appointed executors and trustees.
18 Jul 2013

Estate of KRONFELD [2013] NZHC 1810

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1810
Court

High Court

The court validated the four documents under s14 because, notwithstanding non‑compliance with s11, the documents together evidenced the deceased's testamentary intention (signatures, handwritten amendments, placement in an envelope labelled as a will and supporting evidence), and the residuary beneficiary's consent removed the disqualification in respect of dispositions to witnesses.
16 Aug 2012

Estate of FERON HC TIM CIV 2011-476-000617

Citation

openlaw-862696f8_5b51_4f76_864f_0ae1deb83a39.pdf
Court

High Court

The court declared the notes and email to be the valid will because they evidenced testamentary intention by disposing of property, appointing a sole executor, addressing the residue and funeral arrangements, and because affected beneficiaries consented or did not object, satisfying the requirements for a declaration under s14.
18 May 2012

RE PRINCE (DECEASED) HC PMN CIV-2011-454-510

Citation

openlaw-198b5dda_6fac_42b7_b2e6_0c3594f65ecb.pdf
Court

High Court

The 30 September 2008 document is a codicil within the definition of will and, although it did not comply with s 11 formalities, the Court had power under s 14 to declare it valid because it plainly expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions; s 15 did not apply to this separate codicil, and the application could be heard without notice under r 7.46.
19 Aug 2011

ESTATE OF ROBERT WILLIAM BLAKIE HC DUN CIV-2011-412-465

Citation

openlaw-9cac4e2d_e597_4cac_a72f_edeabe9c7200.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the will did not give effect to the testator's clear intention due to a technical drafting defect in the executor appointment; under s31 of the Wills Act 2007 the Court may correct the will to effect that intention; given the estate facts and identified potential administrators the interests of justice justified a without notice determination and the will was corrected accordingly.
16 Feb 2010

IN THE ESTATE OF TREHEY HC NAP CIV 2009-441-899

Citation

openlaw-02a8e4b9_0bb4_4a0a_a320_d23305426e6b.pdf
Court

Unknown Court

Clause 2.1 did not give effect to the testator's intention because it failed to provide a mechanism to determine which partner of the firm was to act as executor; under s 31 Wills Act 2007 the Court may correct the will by substituting language that identifies the executors as Michael Peter Moody together with the partners of Carlile Dowling at the date of death and expresses the wish that one partner alone prove the will and act initially, thereby removing the uncertainty and giving effect to the testator's intention.