Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 7 September 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV 2016-485-240 [2016] NZHC 1321
IN THE ESTATE OF IVAN PATRICK CRONIN
Hearing:
|
On Papers
|
Counsel:
|
G P Traves for Applicant
|
Judgment:
|
17 June 2016
|
JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J
[1] This is an application that will instructions given to an officer
of the Public Trust be declared a valid will of the deceased.
The deceased
passed away on the evening following the giving of instructions to the Public
Trust.
[2] On 11 November 2013 Mr Cronin contacted an officer of the Public
Trust with whom he had past dealings. He requested the
officer, Mr Alan Timu,
to visit him in Christchurch Hospital in order to take new will instructions.
Mr Cronin indicated he was
in hospital pending further assessment and a move to
a rest home.
[3] Mr Timu deposes that Mr Cronin was sitting up and alert. The new
will instructions differed from the existing will because
since that will his
wife had died, and he had drifted out of contact with the other specific
beneficiaries. He now wished to leave
his estate to a friend.
[4] Mr Timu took the instructions and returned to the Public Trust. He entered the instructions into the Public Trust’s computer system by completing the electronic
Questionnaire. Mr Timu was not at work the next day, but returned the
following
ESTATE OF I P CRONIN [2016] NZHC 1321 [17 June 2016]
day only to learn that Mr Cronin had passed away in the night following Mr
Timu’s
visit.
[5] Previous decisions have confirmed it is not necessary for the
deceased to have seen the will instructions.1 There have also been
examples of instruction sheets for a will being validated.2
In Re Taigel, the instructions took the form of a
solicitor’s file note recording his meeting with the
deceased.3
[6] The present circumstances satisfy me the statutory test is met. Mr
Timu was summonsed for the express purpose of receiving
instructions for a new
will. It is apparent the deceased had considered the matter, and was clear on
his intentions. There is no
reason to consider there was a change of mind
between the giving of instructions and his passing.
[7] I am satisfied the will instructions entered by Mr Timu on 11
November 2013 and now appearing in the form of the Public
Trust Questionnaire
for Will represent the testamentary intentions of Mr Cronin, and I declare the
Questionnaire to be a valid will.
[8] I note for the record that all persons who were to take under the
previous will have indicated their consent to the present
application.
Simon France J
1 Re Campbell (deceased) [2014] 2 NZLR 706.
2 Naidu v Agrew [2012] NZHC 2134.
3 Re Taigel [2014] NZHC 844.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2016/1321.html