Courteney v Pratley - [2017] NZHC 1761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-5912 [2017] NZHC 1761

UNDER THE FAMILY PROTECTION ACT 1955

IN THE MATTER OF

THE ESTATE OF JOAN AYLEEN COURTENEY

BETWEEN

STEVEN COURTENEY First Plaintiff

AND

KLAUDIA ARIANE COURTENEY Second Plaintiff

AND

LANCE HOWARD PRATLEY AS TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE, REPLACING STUART COURTENEY, FORMER EXEXUTOR Defendant

Hearing: 23 May 2017

Counsel:

P W Michalik for Plaintiffs
L Pratley for Defendant

Judgment:

28 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Excluded from his mother’s will less than a year before her death, a son and his daughter make claims against her estate for breaches of moral duty under the Family Protection Act 1955.

[2] The late Joan Courteney was the mother of Steven and Stuart Courteney and grandmother of Steven’s daughter Klaudia. In her last will, Joan removed Steven and his family as beneficiaries in her will and replaced Steven with Stuart, as the executor and trustee of her will.

[3] The key issues for this proceeding are:

COURTENEY v PRATLEY [2017] NZHC 1761 [28 July 2017]

(a) Did Joan Courteney breach her moral duty to Steven and her granddaughter, by failing to provide for them in her will?

(b) If so, what provision should be awarded to remedy the breach? (c) How should the costs of the estate be met in this case?

[4] Stuart Courteney, Joan’s other son, was the sole executor of Joan’s estate. Following difficulties with discovery and other matters, Steven and Klaudia applied for an order recalling probate and appointing an independent executor, Mr Lance Pratley, in place of the defendant. On 20 October 2015 this Court appointed Mr Pratley as executor of Joan’s estate.1 Mr Pratley has taken a neutral stance in these proceedings and will abide the decision of the Court.

Factual background

[5] Steven, the first plaintiff, and Stuart Courteney are the only children of the deceased, Joan Courteney, and her late husband Ron. The brothers are middle-aged and have supported themselves independently for their adult lives.

[6] The second plaintiff, Klaudia Courteney, is Steven’s only child and is now an independent adult. Klaudia is the only grandchild of the deceased and her late husband.

[7] The Courteney family lived in England where both Steven and Stuart were born and grew up. Joan was a geography teacher and her husband Ron was an art teacher and an artist.

[8] Steven has worked as a geologist in the international oil and gas industry. After his marriage to Karen, his wife, they emigrated with their daughter Klaudia
from England to New Zealand in 1995.

1 Courteney v Courteney [2015] NZHC 2563.

[9] Joan and Ron followed Steven and his family to New Zealand and lived on a neighbouring property from July 1997. Steven sponsored their move to New Zealand.

[10] With Steven’s assistance, by gifting a portion of the land owned by he and his wife, Joan and Ron were able to acquire the neighbouring land, by way of a subdivision and built.…

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.

Continue reading Courteney v Pratley

Details

AGLC: Courteney v Pratley [2017] NZHC 1761
Case: [2017] NZHC 1761
Decision Date: 28 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Courteney v Pratley was heard. The plaintiffs, Steven and Klaudia Courteney, sought claims against the estate of Joan Courteney for breaches of moral duty under the Family Protection Act 1955. The main issues to be decided were whether Joan breached her moral duty to Steven and Klaudia by failing to provide for them in her will, and if so, what provision should be awarded to remedy the breach. Additionally, the court had to consider how the costs of the estate should be met.

The court found that Joan did breach her moral duty to Steven and Klaudia by deliberately and wrongfully excluding them from her will. The court awarded Steven the New Zealand assets held by the estate, amounting to $513,205.57 together with any interest. This award also met Klaudia's claim as her claim was subsidiary to her father's. The court also decided that the legal expenses and fees incurred by Stuart, amounting to $123,143.97, should be paid by him.

The plaintiffs' claim was upheld, and Steven was awarded the estate's New Zealand assets. The court granted leave to the parties to make submissions on the provisional view of the respective deductions and the estate's liabilities.

Orders