Dennis v Haigh

[2025] NZHC 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-116

[2025] NZHC 509

UNDER

The Family Protection Act 1955

The Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of WINIFRIDE

MAIRI DENNIS (commonly known as ‘Margaret’)

BETWEEN

DIANNE MARGARET DENNIS

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID IVOR HAIGH, as executor of the

Estate of Winifride Mairi Dennis (commonly known as ‘Margaret’)

Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	D R Weatherley and B R McMurtrie for Plaintiff
Judgment:	13 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(directions as to service)

DENNIS v HAIGH [2025] NZHC 509 [13 March 2025]

[1]                 This proceeding is brought under the Family Protection Act 1955 and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949.

[2]                 The plaintiff, Dianne Dennis, is one five children of the late Winifride Dennis, known as Margaret. Unfortunately, three of Dianne’s siblings predeceased Margaret.

[3]                 Dianne’s solicitors recognise the need to serve Margaret’s grandchildren but that presents difficulties with service on the children of Dianne’s siblings who predeceased Margaret, as due to family circumstances, Dianne does not have contact details for them.

[4]                 Dianne believes her brother, Ewan Dennis may have contact details for Margaret’s other grandchildren, but advises that such have not been provided.

[5]                 The following orders relate to the documents listed at paragraph (2)(a)—(f) of the application for directions as to service dated 7 March 2025.

[6]                 There are orders in terms of paragraph 2(g), that is service on the executor, and paragraph 2(h), service on Mr Dennis as a beneficiary of the estate. I also make an order in terms of paragraph 2(i) that Mr Dennis represent the interest of his children; grandchildren of the deceased. I make that order as counsel advise that they understand that Mr Dennis’ children do not wish to take part in the proceeding. If that proves not to be the case, then they are of course free to take such steps as they think fit.

[7]                 There is an order that Jessica-Anne Cathcart is to be served — that is an order in terms of paragraph 2(j) of the application.

[8]I make an order in terms of paragraph 2(l), that is Robert Brears be served.

[9]                 I do not make the order requested at paragraph 2(k), being that Ms Cathcart be served on behalf of Bryce, her sibling. I have no way of knowing if Ms Cathcart is in contact with her sibling — this order seeks, in effect, an order for substituted service

— such is not warranted on the information provided.

[10]              That leaves the children of Charmaine, one of Margaret’s late children. Counsel advises that the plaintiff believes that Charmaine had two children, Tania and William. There is a direction that they are to be served but ultimately how they are to be served along with Ms Cathcart’s sibling will have to be subject to further directions.

[11]              If Mr Dennis has contact details for Bryce, Tania or William, there is no reason for him not to make them available. A failure to do so will simply cause delay and further costs.  Of  course,  if  the executor  has  such  information  as  executor  and  a solicitor then I would expect him to make that information available.

[12]              Accordingly, if further directions are required as to the method of service of Ms Cathcart’s brother, Bryce, and the children of Charmaine, Tania and William, leave is reserved to apply further.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Young Hunter Lawyers, Christchurch (for Plaintiff)