Beets v Beets

[2021] NZHC 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-577

[2021] NZHC 115

UNDER

section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of Raymond Peter Edward

BETWEEN

ROBERT HENRY BEETS

Applicant

AND

RUBY BEETS

First Respondent

JESSICA BEETS

Second Respondent

Hearing:	9 February 2021
Appearances:	K Davenport QC for applicant B Lupton for first respondent Second respondent in person
Judgment:	10 February 2021

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[1]    In this case, Mr Robert Beets applies for an order pursuant to s 14 of the  Wills Act 2007 validating the (unexecuted) will of his late brother, Mr Raymond Beets, who died at Whangarei on 26 April 2020.

[2]    The deceased’s two daughters, Ruby Beets and Jessica Beets, have been served with the originating documentation in the proceeding.

[3]    For her part, Ruby Beets has consented to the order sought from the outset. Jessica Beets originally consented. Subsequently she withdrew her consent. During

BEETS v BEETS [2021] NZHC 115 [10 February 2021]

the course of a short teleconference at 2.15 pm on 9 February 2021, she changed her position for a second time, indicating that she now consents to the will being validated. This was after it was explained to her that this proceeding concerns only the validation of the will, and her consent to that would not prevent her from challenging the dispositions made by her late father in his will once validated.

[4]    There is no reason to criticise Jessica Beets for changing her mind on two occasions in relation to this matter. It concerns an important issue. As soon as Jessica Beets understood the scope of this proceeding, and that it was not a proceeding in which it was possible to challenge the terms of the will (as opposed to whether the will should be validated or not), she consented to the order sought.

[5]    The deceased had no other children and both Ruby Beets and Jessica Beets now consent to the order sought.

[6]    In those circumstances, I can see no reason why the Court should not make the order sought by consent and I do so.

[7]    As to costs, as I have not heard from the parties, I make no determination. My preliminary view is that, this being very much a family matter, the costs of making the application should be paid from the estate and that otherwise costs should be left to lie where they have fallen. But, as I say, not having heard from the parties in relation to costs, I make no order at this stage. If costs cannot be resolved within the family, as I would expect, the parties may file and serve memoranda in the usual way.

[8]    I take this opportunity to record my suggestions to Ms Jessica Beets that if she proposes to pursue a claim against the executor and trustee of the estate (such as a claim pursuant to the Family Protection Act 1955), she first takes the matter up with her sister to see if they can resolve any differences and if that proves impossible take advice from a solicitor or counsel experienced in such litigation.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Sellars & Co, Wellsford for applicant

Insight Legal Ltd, Warkworth for first respondent