Beazley v Tauariki aka Stevens - [2015] NZHC 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-003008 [2015] NZHC 116

UNDER the Administration Act 1969

IN THE MATTER OF

an originating application to remove administrators in the estate of Tauwhitu Selwyn Norman Beazley of Auckland, retired (deceased)

BETWEEN

GLADESS BEAZLEY, DELLA MURRAY BEAZLEY, GRACE NGAPIU CASSIDY aka GRACE NGAPUI CASSIDY and GEORGINA FAY BEAZLEY

Applicants

AND

LINDA GRACE TAUARIKI aka LINDA GRACE STEVENS

First Respondent

HARVEY STEVENS aka HARVEY IAN TIPENE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 5 February 2015

Appearances:

J B Murray for Applicants
No appearance for Respondents

Date ofminute:

10 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 10 February 2015 at 12 noon
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

BEAZLEY v TAUARIKI & OR [2015] NZHC 116 [10 February 2015]

Introduction

[1] The applicants are the children and one of the grandchildren of Tawhitu Selwyn Norman Beazley, a widower who died intestate in September 2003. They and the respondents, who are not related to Mr Beazley, are the administrators of Mr Beazley’s estate. The applicants have applied for an order removing the
respondents as administrators.1 The respondents did not appear at the hearing but

had previously indicated through their lawyer that they neither consented nor opposed the application.

[2] The right to apply for letters of administration of the estate of a person dying intestate is determined in accordance with the order of priority set out at s 27.35(3) of the Administration Act 1969. The persons having first priority are those with a beneficial interest in the estate in accordance with s 27.35(4). In the absence of any spouse or civil union or de facto partner it is the children of the deceased who have the priority in terms of entitlement to a grant of administration. It is also those
children for whom the estate is held on statutory trust for that person’s issue.2

[3] Under s 21 a person appointed as an administrator may be removed on various specified grounds, including “where is becomes expedient to do so”. I respectfully refer to Heath J’s comments in Bupa Care Services NZ Ltd v Gillibrand on what would satisfy the criterion of expedience under s 21(1):3

“Expedience” is a lower threshold than necessity, and imports considerations as suitability, practicality and efficiency. While relevant, misconduct, breach of trust, dishonesty or unfitness need not be established to obtain an order. Hostility is another factor, though it is usually something that arises between administrators/trustees and beneficiaries.

The appointment of the parties as administrators

[4] The circumstances in which the parties came to be appointed administrators of Mr Beazley’s estate are described in the affidavit of one of the applicants, Gladess Beazley, one of Mr Beazley’s daughters. She and the other applicants are the natural
children or grandchildren of Mr Beazley, whereas the respondents are not, although

1      Administration Act 1969, s 21.
2      Administration Act 1969, s 77.
3      Bupa KF Services NZ v Gillibrand [2013]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beazley v Tauariki aka Stevens and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 116
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application by the children and one of the grandchildren of Tauwhitu Selwyn Norman Beazley, a deceased widower, to remove the respondents as administrators of his estate. The applicants and respondents were appointed administrators of the estate in 2014, following the death of Mr Beazley in 2003. The applicants sought to remove the respondents due to their disagreement over the administration of the estate and their intention to make a claim against the estate. The respondents did not appear at the hearing but had indicated through their lawyer that they neither consented nor opposed the application.

The court had to decide whether it was expedient to remove the respondents as administrators, and if so, whether the Public Trustee should be appointed in their place. The court also had to determine whether the applicants were entitled to costs.

The court found that the respondents were not the natural or adopted children of Mr Beazley, and therefore their right to apply for appointment as administrators sat behind the applicants' rights in terms of priority under the Administration Act 1969. The court held that it was expedient to remove the respondents as administrators due to the disagreement over the administration of the estate and the potential for additional expense and detriment to all concerned. The court rejected the suggestion of appointing the Public Trustee as administrator, as there was no cross-application for the removal of the applicants as administrators and no reason to think that the applicants would not act properly in their administration of the estate. The court allowed the application and removed the respondents as administrators of Mr Beazley's estate. The effect is that the estate is vested in the applicants in their capacity as administrators as joint tenants. The court awarded costs on a 2B basis, excluding the costs for the filing of the application and affidavit in support.

The court's decision highlights the importance of understanding the priority order for applying for letters of administration of an estate under the Administration Act 1969. The court also emphasised the need for administrators to act in the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries, and the potential for additional expense and detriment to all concerned if there is disagreement over the administration of the estate. The court's decision also underscores the importance of transparency and honesty in the administration of an estate, as well as the need for administrators to act with suitability, practicality, and efficiency.

Orders