Estate of Andrews

[2025] NZHC 2592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2025-454-80 [2025] NZHC 2592

IN THE MATTER

of s 14 of the Wills Act 2007

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of CRAIG KITCHENER ANDREWS

BETWEEN

ROSHELL JOYCE TRAIL

Applicant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	S J Sheppard for Applicant
Judgment:	8 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1]    This is a without notice application by Roshell Trail for an order under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act) to declare a document to be a valid will. I allow the application, for the following reasons.

Background

[2]    Craig Kitchener Andrews (Craig) died on 27 April 2025. He had no spouse or partner, no children and no living parents. Craig’s friend Luke Auckram has deposed that Craig called him on 18 September 2024 and asked him to witness his will. When Mr Auckram was at Craig’s home he showed him his will which he wrote himself and advised he had already signed it the previous day. Craig took Mr Auckram through his will explaining he was writing it because he was going in for an operation and did not want there to be arguments if something bad happened to him. Craig showed

RE ESTATE OF ANDREWS [2025] NZHC 2592 [8 September 2025]

Mr Auckram where he had signed the will and confirmed that was his signature and that he had signed the will the day before. Mr Auckram signed on the bottom right- hand page of the document as his witness. The document in question, a copy of which was annexed to Mr Auckram’s affidavit, provides that Craig bequeathed his assets to his two sisters upon his death:

(a)Tania Patricia Minnell; and

(b)the applicant, Roshell Joyce Trail.

[3]    The document provides that all of Craig’s assets are to be shared equally, apart from $48,000 from the proceeds of the sale of a named property to be deducted first and given to Roshell Trail with the remainder of money to be split equally. The document provides that Roshell Trail is to be the executor of Craig’s estate.

[4]    In a memorandum of counsel on behalf of the applicant, counsel advise that Roshell, Tania and four other half siblings named in the applicant’s affidavit are the only persons who have been able to be identified who may have a claim to the estate under intestacy provisions. All of them have either signed a written consent form to the application or have received notice but have not objected.

[5]    The applicant’s affidavit also notes that Craig’s father may have potentially fathered 13 other children while he was residing in Australia. However, the applicant has no information about the identities of those potential siblings, if they exist, or any information about their whereabouts.

[6]    The applicant confirms that Craig was not survived by any child and that she has made reasonable enquiries for the purposes of the Status of Children Act 1969 as to the existence of a parent or child of the deceased (in addition to those already known to her) who could claim an interest in the estate of the deceased by reason only of that Act and the enactments governing the distribution of intestate estates. The result of those enquiries was that the applicant did not discover any such parent or child. The applicant annexes a certificate from the Office of the Registrar-General confirming the absence of a record of any such parent or child.

My assessment

[7]    The document annexed to Mr Auckram’s affidavit appears to be a will, but it does not comply with s 11(2) of the Act because it is not witnessed in accordance with s 11(4).

[8]    Section 14 of the Act provides that the High Court may make an order declaring a document that appears to be a will valid if it is satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intentions.1 The Court may consider:2

(a)the document;

(b)evidence on the signing and witnessing of the document;

(c)evidence on the deceased person’s testamentary intentions; and

(d)evidence of statements made by the deceased person.

[9]Based on the material submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that:

(a)the present application can proceed without notice; and

(b)the document expresses Craig Andrews’ testamentary intentions.

Result

[10]   I declare that the document, a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit of Luke Auckram affirmed on 22 July 2025, is a valid will.

McHerron J

Solicitors:
CR Law, Palmerston North for Applicant

1      Wills Act 2007, s14(2).

2      Section 14(3).