16 Nov 2023
The court found there was a breach of moral duty to both Stanley and Alexis warranting modest recognition awards rather than broad testamentary revision, having regard to the nature and history of the relationships, prior lifetime provision and the size and composition of the estate; accordingly each applicant was awarded an additional interest equal to 5% of the gross estate (NZ$50,555 each).
5 Aug 2021
The constructive trust claim failed for lack of evidence of material contributions and reasonable proprietary expectation; the deceased breached her moral duty under the Family Protection Act to the second and third defendants and the will is varied to award each $950,000 from the estate; Australian assets were considered for valuation but orders apply only to New Zealand assets.
7 May 2021
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's exercise of discretion: the Judge properly found a breach of moral duty but awarded only such provision as necessary to repair that breach while respecting the testator's clear testamentary intentions; excluding the Newmarket apartment and the agreed $500,000 relationship payment from incidence was justified by the deceased's intention and the widow's caregiving, and awarding one third of the residue to the applicant (with the grandchildren each receiving one third) was within the permissible range and not plainly wrong.
8 Apr 2020
Claim dismissed: plaintiff failed to prove a perfected gift or an express trust in writing, there was insufficient contribution/detriment and no unconscionability to support an institutional constructive trust, equitable estoppel not established, and testamentary/trust provisions made by the deceased offset any claim to the property.
12 Dec 2019
The 13 and 16 November 2016 documents did not constitute valid testamentary dispositions because they referred back to a revoked earlier will and did not clearly create binding testamentary changes; all persons with potential claims had been notified and consented to recognition of the 8 December 2011 will as the deceased's last valid will, and accordingly the Court ordered probate proceed on the basis of the 2011 will.
23 May 2018
The Court found on the balance of objective evidence (27-year duration, sexual relationship, mutual care, corroborating witness evidence and conduct) that the plaintiff and deceased were in a de facto relationship; the will's provisions fell short of adequate provision for the plaintiff's proper maintenance and support (including recognition); the minimum necessary remedy was an award of NZD 300000 from the estate; costs to be paid from the estate and issues over personal chattels were to be resolved by agreement or further submissions.
24 Feb 2017
The plaintiff failed to prove undue influence or unconscionable conduct: the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by evidence that Mrs Shields consistently intended to prefer Carla (including earlier independent instructions), was estranged from Sarah, received adequate explanation and time from a competent independent solicitor, and retained practical benefits and protective powers under the trust; consequently the negligence claims against Corban Revell also failed because the firm acted competently and had no reasonable basis to suspect impairment at the time.
17 Sept 2014
Although the deceased owed a moral duty to his son, that duty was not discharged by reliance on the spouse's testamentary arrangements because such reliance was uncertain and revocable; the Court must therefore remedy the breach by making a limited award that recognises the son while respecting the testator's intention and the spouse's interests; $175,000 lump sum ordered.
16 Jul 2012
The Court affirmed the High Court's exercise of discretion: Irma breached her moral duty to her children and, having regard to the size of the combined estates, the children's contributions (notably Nathan's custodianship of the family farm and Melissa's care), the prior Family Court settlement, and the estrangement history, the awards fixed by the Judge were within permissible discretion. The Court adjusted only where misassessment occurred: increased John's award to A$500,000 and reduced one costs award to reflect disproportionate conduct and funding of litigation by beneficiaries.
23 Nov 2011
Appeal allowed in part: Family Court's division was excessively generous to the children given the existence and effect of the PAW Family Trust and other factual matrix; a moderate intervention to repair the breach of moral duty was sufficient — order modified so widow receives 64% of the residual estate and each respondent receives 12% of the residual estate.