Bonnington
Case
•
[2016] NZHC 653
•12 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bonnington [2016] NZHC 653
[2016] NZHC 653
12 April 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved the estate of Josephine Bonnington, who passed away on or around October 1, 2015. The dispute arose from a clerical error in her will, dated 2007, which was discovered during the application for probate. Josephine's children, Alexander, Ruth, and Bernard Bonnington, sought an order to correct the error under section 31 of the Wills Act 2007. The will originally appointed Josephine's children as executors in the event that her husband did not survive her, but a clear mistake in the wording referred to "wife" instead of "husband." The children aimed to have this corrected to reflect their mother's true intentions.
The central legal issue was whether the court had the authority to correct the obvious clerical error in Josephine's will to accurately reflect her intentions. The court needed to determine if the error was apparent and whether the correction would not alter the substance of the will. The children argued that the error was clear and did not change the essence of the will, which was to appoint them as executors if their father, not their mother, predeceased Josephine.
The court, in its judgment, found that the error in the will was indeed apparent and did not change the substance of Josephine's intentions. The judge was satisfied that the will, as it stood, did not accurately reflect Josephine's intentions due to the clerical error. The judge then ordered that the word "wife" in clause 4 of the will be replaced with the word "husband." This correction aligned with Josephine's actual instructions and the intentions conveyed to her solicitor, Mr. Rolfe, who admitted to the clerical mistake. The court's ruling ensured that the will now correctly represented Josephine's wishes, with her children appointed as executors if her husband, not she, predeceased her.
The central legal issue was whether the court had the authority to correct the obvious clerical error in Josephine's will to accurately reflect her intentions. The court needed to determine if the error was apparent and whether the correction would not alter the substance of the will. The children argued that the error was clear and did not change the essence of the will, which was to appoint them as executors if their father, not their mother, predeceased Josephine.
The court, in its judgment, found that the error in the will was indeed apparent and did not change the substance of Josephine's intentions. The judge was satisfied that the will, as it stood, did not accurately reflect Josephine's intentions due to the clerical error. The judge then ordered that the word "wife" in clause 4 of the will be replaced with the word "husband." This correction aligned with Josephine's actual instructions and the intentions conveyed to her solicitor, Mr. Rolfe, who admitted to the clerical mistake. The court's ruling ensured that the will now correctly represented Josephine's wishes, with her children appointed as executors if her husband, not she, predeceased her.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Clerical Error
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Wills Act 2007
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Bonnington [2016] NZHC 653
Most Recent Citation
MacPherson [2023] NZHC 3135
Cases Citing This Decision
4
MacPherson
[2023] NZHC 3135
Estate of Kamo
[2020] NZHC 474
MacPherson
[2023] NZHC 3135
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0