Blackwell v Hollings

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-10433 [2014] NZHC 667

UNDER the Wills Act 2007 and Parts 18, 19 and 27 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Robert Stanley Chambers

BETWEEN SIMON CHARLES BLACKWELL and DEBORAH ANNE TOHILL CHAMBERS
Applicants

ANDCAITLIN ROSE TOHILL HOLLINGS First Respondent

ZELDA EVE TOHILL HOLLINGS Second Respondent

DAVID ROBERT CHAMBERS Third Respondent

CHRISTOPHER JAMES CHAMBERS Fourth Respondent

In Chambers:

Judgment: 3 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] At the time of the greatly lamented death of Chambers J on 21 May 2013, he had drafted, but not executed, a new will. It lay instead within the interstices of his associate’s computer. It required only entry of the date of a referenced agreement, execution and attestation. As it happens, the referenced agreement had been signed
by the last party thereto just a few hours earlier.

BLACKWELL & ANOR v HOLLINGS & ORS [2014] NZHC 667 [3 April 2014]

[2] An application is now before the Court, brought by those appointed executors and trustees under the draft will. It is for an order that the draft will be declared the valid will of Chambers J, pursuant to s 14 of the Wills Act 2007.

[3] The application has been served on all relevant family members, in accordance with directions given previously by MacKenzie J. The application is unopposed.

[4] For the purposes of s 14, I am satisfied on the evidence filed that:

(a) The draft will “appears to be a will”, in that it is a will apart from the

omitted elements described in [1] above.

(b) It does not comply with s 11 (execution and attestation). (c) It came into existence in New Zealand.
(d) It expresses Chambers J’s testamentary intentions.

[5] There will therefore be an order declaring that the draft will (exhibit C to the affidavit of Tracylee Caroline Bryant, sworn 2 September 2013) is the valid will of Chambers J.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitors:
Blackwells, Auckland for Applicants

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blackwell v Hollings involves a dispute over the validity of a draft will of Robert Stanley Chambers, who passed away before he could execute it. Simon Charles Blackwell and Deborah Anne Tohill Chambers, the intended executors and trustees under the draft will, have applied to the High Court of New Zealand for a declaration that the draft will is valid. Caitlin Rose Tohill Hollings, Zelda Eve Tohill Hollings, David Robert Chambers, and Christopher James Chambers, who are family members of the deceased, were served with the application and did not oppose it.

The legal issues before the court were whether the draft will meets the criteria under section 14 of the Wills Act 2007 to be declared as the valid will of the deceased. Specifically, the court had to determine if the draft will appears to be a will, whether it expresses the testamentary intentions of the deceased, and whether it came into existence in New Zealand. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the draft will complied with the requirements of section 11 regarding execution and attestation.

The court found that the draft will met the criteria for being declared the valid will of the deceased under section 14 of the Wills Act 2007. The draft will appeared to be a will, expressed the testamentary intentions of the deceased, and came into existence in New Zealand. However, it did not comply with the requirements of section 11 concerning execution and attestation. Despite this non-compliance, the court was satisfied that the draft will sufficiently conveyed the deceased’s intentions and thus ordered that it be declared the valid will of Robert Stanley Chambers.

The final order of the court was that the draft will, referred to as exhibit C in the affidavit of Tracylee Caroline Bryant, is declared to be the valid will of Robert Stanley Chambers. This decision allows the applicants to proceed with the administration of the estate according to the terms of the draft will.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established