IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2022-485-000610
[2023] NZHC 634
IN THE MATTER of the estate of Peter Clarence Dudding (deceased) AND IN THE MATTER
of the estate of Jennifer Dawn Dudding (deceased)
BETWEEN
PETER GLENN DUDDING
Applicant
AND
MELANIE THOMAS as executor of the estate of Peter Clarence Dudding
First Respondent
AND
MELANIE THOMAS
Second Respondent
AND
LINDA SANTO
Third Respondent
AND
PETER SHANE DUDDING
Fourth Respondent
AND
ROCHELLE DUDDING
Fifth Respondent
AND
PETER FORD DUDDING
Sixth Respondent
AND
KAYLENE CORTINA DUDDING
Seventh Respondent
AND
PETER THOMAS
Eighth Respondent
AND
RYAN ANTHONY JAMES SCOTT
Ninth Respondent
AND
HOLLY ELIZABETH BUTTON
Tenth Respondent
DUDDING v THOMAS [2023] NZHC 634 [27 March 2023]
AND BRADD EAREA
Eleventh Respondent
AND
JAYDEN EAREA
Twelfth Respondent
AND
LLOYD JOHNSON
Thirteenth Respondent
Hearing: 14 –15 March 2023 Appearances:
G F Kelly and A S Cavanaugh for the Applicant S J Webster for the First Respondent
L J Blomfield for the Second to Eighth respondents
H Button – on VMR under a watching brief for the Ninth to Thirteenth RespondentsJudgment:
27 March 2023
JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND [1]
APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION [15]
APPLICATION FOR VALIDATION — JENNIFER’S ESTATE [21] INITIAL CAPACITY ISSUE [28]
THE LAW [32]
RESULT [66]
APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF PETER’S WILL [68] FACTUAL BACKGROUND [69]
EVIDENCE SURROUNDING THE WILL’S EXECUTION [73]
THE LAW [82]
ANALYSIS [87]
RESULT [99]
COSTS [102]
Introduction and background
[1] This decision relates to issues which have arisen in the estate of the late Peter Clarence Dudding (Peter) who died on 3 August 2021 and the estate of the late Jennifer Dawn Dudding (Jennifer) who died on 27 June 2021. Jennifer and Peter had been married for more than 60 years when they died only five weeks apart.
[2] Jennifer and Peter have seven living adult children, namely the applicant and the second to seventh respondents:
(a)Peter Glenn Dudding (Glenn);
(b)Melanie Thomas (Melanie);
(c)Linda Santo (Linda);
(d)Peter Shane Dudding (Shane);
(e)Rochelle Dudding (Rochelle);
(f)Peter Ford Dudding (Ford); and
(g)Kaylene Cortina Dudding (Kaylene).
[3] They also had one further child, Peter Brent Dudding (Brent), who sadly died before his parents. He left five adult children of his own, namely the ninth to thirteenth respondents respectively:
(a)Ryan Scott (Ryan);
(b)Holly Button (Holly);
(c)Bradd Earea (Bradd);
(d)Jayden Pierce Earea (Jayden); and
(e)Lloyd Johnson (Lloyd).
(All hereafter are together called “the grandchildren”.)
[4]When they died, Jennifer and Peter together owned a property, comprising
1.75 hectares at 277 Meeanee Road, Napier (the property). The property was owned by them both as tenants in common in equal shares. Also at that time they held some shares in Dudding Contractors Ltd (the Company), an earthmoving company, a long-standing family company, which for some years had been operated by their third-eldest son Glenn. The Company had a total share capital of 2,000 shares, of which at her death Jennifer owned 900 shares and…
Continue reading Dudding v Thomas
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dudding v Thomas [2023] NZHC 634
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 634
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Regarding the validation of Jennifer’s draft will, the court found that the draft will reflected Jennifer’s testamentary intentions at the time it was prepared. Despite Jennifer’s death without signing the draft will, the court was satisfied that the draft will expressed her intentions and should be validated. The court rejected the argument that Jennifer lacked testamentary capacity at the time the draft will was prepared and dismissed claims that Jennifer had changed her mind about making a will.
In interpreting Peter’s will, the court identified an innocent drafting error in the will which led to ambiguity. The court interpreted the will to give effect to Peter’s intention that his estate should be distributed to his children if Jennifer predeceased him. The court corrected the will to reflect Peter’s true intentions, overriding the literal wording of the will due to the identified error. The court dismissed Glenn’s application for a declaratory judgment as it was unnecessary following the correction of the will.
The court reserved costs, encouraging the parties to resolve the issue among themselves. If agreement could not be reached, the parties were directed to submit memoranda on the issue of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.