Estate of Antoniadis

[2023] NZHC 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-610105

[2023] NZHC 775

IN THE ESTATE OF THEODOR IORDAN ANTONIADIS

Hearing:

3 April 2023

Counsel:

P S Davidson for Executor

L M KcKeown and P J M Gerard for Executor

Judgment:

24 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Caveator’s show cause hearing]

Introduction

[1]                 This proceeding concerns a “show cause” challenge to a grant of probate in favour of an intending executor of a deceased’s estate.1

[2]                 Mr Theodor Antoniadis was a member of Wellington’s Greek Romanian community. He died on 4 June 2022 at the age of 92. Under Theodor’s last will his then solicitor, Mr William Bevan, was appointed executor. Most of the estate was left to Ms Anne Maree Corbett, a friend and eventual caregiver for Theodor in his final six years, and her grandchildren.

1      Under s 61(a)(ii) of the Administration Act 1969.

ESTATE OF T I ANTONIADIS [2023] NZHC 775 (24 April 2023)

[3]                 Under a former will Theodor’s nephew, Dr Michael Antoniadis, was to be appointed  executor  and  his  three   children   were   the   principal   beneficiaries. Dr Antoniadis has filed a caveat against the grant of probate to Mr Bevan as the executor under Theodor’s last will.

[4]                 The issue in this proceeding is whether Dr Antoniadis has shown cause as to why the order nisi granted in favour of Mr Bevan should not be made absolute. Under s 61 of the Administration Act 1969, if the Court finds the caveator has not raised sufficient grounds to show cause, the Court will make the order nisi absolute and grant probate to the executor. Conversely, if the Court finds a caveator has raised sufficient grounds to show that a full enquiry should be made, the Court can order the application for probate to be made in solemn form, with a fully contested hearing to follow.

Background

[5]                 It appears that Theodor Antoniadis grew up in Romania and immigrated to New Zealand from Greece in 1951. Shortly after he met his wife, Helen, whom he married in 1954. They did not have children.

[6]                 Although Theodor dropped out of school in Romania when he was 14, he went to work for his father’s fish mongering business and, in New Zealand, owned several successful restaurant businesses.

[7]                 In the early days Theodor and Helen had a close relationship with Theodor’s brother, Antonio, and his wife, Vasiliki. They would see each other often.

[8]                 Sadly, Helen passed away in 1991, and after that Antonio and Vasiliki did not see Theodor as often as they had previously.

[9]                 Evidence from Vasiliki suggests that despite moving to New Zealand in 1951, Theodor’s fluency in English was limited. She has deposed that he never appeared to be able to write or spell competently or fluently without assistance, and when Helen was alive, she would fill out forms and write letters on his behalf. Theodor continued to prefer speaking and writing in his first language, Romanian, with his close family members.

[10]             The evidence also suggests that Theodor liked to place a bet. He met and befriended Ms Corbett, who appears to have worked in the TAB in Seatoun, possibly in the 1980s.2 Fast forward then to late 2015, when Ms Corbett and Theodor appear to have struck up their acquaintance once again. Ms Corbett then moved into Theodor’s home in Miramar sometime between late 2015 and May 2016. Theodor was 86 years old, and the available evidence suggests Ms Corbett was significantly younger, being in her 60s.

[11]             Dr Antoniadis’ evidence suggests that initially Ms Corbett began living with Theodor as a tenant. There is a tenancy agreement between the two recorded in a rent book. It appears that prior to Ms Corbett moving in, Theodor had been living alone for most of the previous 30 years. The records also indicate that Ms Corbett gave four weeks’ notice to end the tenancy on 3 November 2016, but she never moved out. Rather, the evidence suggests she remains living in Theodor’s home in Miramar.  Ms Corbett has not provided an affidavit, but the material before the Court suggests that she might be best described at this point as Theodor’s housekeeper, caregiver and friend. There was no clear indication that they were in a relationship in the nature of marriage or that her support for Theodor went beyond these roles.

Theodor’s wills

[12]             There are four wills relevant to the issue. The first was prepared in 1997. By its terms, Dr Antoniadis was appointed executor and his three children were named as beneficiaries.

[13]             Three other wills of interest were prepared after Ms Corbett began cohabiting with Theodor, and marked a radical change in Theodore’s testamentary intentions. While there are refinements over the course of the three wills, in substance they remain broadly consistent:

2      Evidence is unclear as to the duration of their acquaintance. Ms Corbett appears to have suggested that she originally met Theodor in the 1980s but Dr Antoniadis questions whether this is accurate.

(a)in contrast to the 1997 will, the three later wills involved substantial bequests to charities;

(b)a life interest in the sum of $450,000 was left to Ms Corbett;

(c)the residue of the estate was left to Ms Corbett and her grandchildren; and

(d)Dr Antoniadis received a small bequest of $5,000, but otherwise his children were excluded as beneficiaries of Theodor’s estate.

[14]             There is currently no clear evidence of the nature of the relationship between Theodor and Ms Corbett’s family, or why at such an advanced age he might choose to leave the bulk of his estate to her and her family rather than his own.

[15]             The three wills in issue are dated 17 October 2016, 24 March 2017 and       29 March 2017, and were all prepared by Mr Bevan. The principal terms are set out in the appendix to this judgment. Of significance, however, is the proximity between Ms Corbett moving into Theodore’s home and preparation of the first of those wills. It seems that the significant change in Theodor’s testamentary intentions marked by his 17 October 2016 will occurred within five to 10 months of Ms Corbett moving into his home. A further aspect of timing which is curious is the short period of time—only five days—between the second and third wills. Little of significance changed between those two wills apart from a correction of the names of two of Ms Corbett’s grandchildren (who were named as beneficiaries).3 The previous two wills had referred to “Jack Dylan Stretch” as a beneficiary, but the final will refers to “Jack and Dylan Stretch”.

Relevant principles

[16]             Under s 61(d) of the Administration Act, the Court may order that an order nisi be made absolute or discharged, or alternatively that the application for administration should be made in solemn form.

3      A specific bequest of $100,000 to one of the charities named in the 24 March 2017 will was reduced to $20,000.

[17]             Applications for probate by way of orders nisi and absolute are a short form or summary process whereby an executor is granted probate by the High Court. In essence, an order nisi is an interim order that enables the executor to administer (but not distribute) the deceased’s estate, pending determination of any challenges to their appointment.4 Then, unless a caveator appears at a “show cause” hearing and provides sufficient reasons as to why the executor should not administer the estate, the Court may make the order nisi absolute (that is, grant probate to the executor in full).5

[18]             By contrast, an application for probate in solemn form requires formal pleadings and a full contested hearing.6 There, the Court can conduct a fulsome inquiry into issues around the validity of a will, or the appropriateness of a nominated executor.

[19]The following well established principles apply at the “show cause” hearing:7

(a)the onus is on the caveator to show why the order nisi should not be made absolute;

(b)to discharge the onus, the caveator has to raise sufficient grounds to establish either that the order nisi should be discharged or that a full inquiry is appropriate;

(c)the threshold for satisfying the Court that there are grounds for a full inquiry is low;

(d)the practice of the Court in a show cause hearing is not to decide the ultimate issue as to the validity of the will;

(e)the Court does not usually resolve disputed facts at a show cause hearing. Rather, if the caveator’s evidence is disputed, the Court

4      Jurisich v Harris [2016] NZHC 525, [2016] NZAR 754 at [3]; and Gillman-Harris v Harris [2016] NZHC 525 at [33] and [37].

5      Administration Act, s 61(c) and (d).

6      Jurisich v Harris, above n 4, at [7].

7      Re Estate Turk [2020] NZHC 1495 at [12], [13], [16] and [34].

normally orders the application for administration to proceed in solemn form; and

(f)if a caveator does not raise sufficient grounds to establish that a full inquiry should be made into the matters raised by the caveator, the order nisi will usually be made absolute.

The grounds in which an order absolute is opposed by the caveator

[20]             Dr Antoniadis advances two broad grounds on which to oppose an order absolute in favour of Mr Bevan as executor:

(a)first, he points to evidence which he suggests raises a live question about Theodor’s testamentary capacity at the time Mr Bevan prepared his last three wills;

(b)second, he raises a concern about the independence of Theodor’s exercise of testamentary capacity, in particular whether it was free from undue influence.

[21]             In response, Mr Bevan seeks an order absolute. He says that even though the threshold on the caveator at the show cause stage is low, on the basis of the evidence the Court should be satisfied that there are no issues requiring further investigation or consideration by the Court.

Consideration

[22]             I am satisfied that Dr Antoniadis has discharged the burden on him to show cause and that it is appropriate to direct Mr Bevan to apply for probate in solemn form. Six aspects of the evidence have led me to this conclusion.

The circumstances leading Theodor to alter his will

[23]             Theodor’s estate is said to be worth close to $1.7 million. Theodor’s will in 1997 left his entire estate to his nephew’s family. The three wills he drew once

Ms Corbett became his caregiver, instead of simply his friend, marked a significant departure from his prior testamentary disposition.

[24]             It seems on the current evidence that within a period of five to 10 months of Ms Corbett moving into Theodor’s home he decided to leave a substantial majority of his estate to her, and her family. He was 86 years old when that occurred. Further, on the evidence currently available, there does not appear to be any suggestion that Theodor’s relationship with Ms Corbett was any more than that of an elderly man and his caregiver, housekeeper and old friend. Those circumstances are sufficient, in my view, to warrant proper enquiry by the Court before a grant of probate is made in accordance with Theodor’s last will.

Ms Corbett’s handwritten note?

[25]             Dr Antoniadis has provided a handwritten note he recovered from Theodor’s home while he was acting as Theodor’s welfare guardian. For the purposes of argument at least, Ms Davidson was prepared to accept that I should treat it as a note made by Ms Corbett. The note appears to be written by her to record, broadly, her understanding or view of Theodor’s intention to revise his will largely in her favour. It is in these terms:8

Bill Bevan

1Car to be left to Anne Maree Corbett.

2Anne Maree Corbett will receive monies to pay for her rates & insurance for ten years. This is for her house she buys.

3The Funeral [from] of Theodor Iordan Antoniadis to be paid for by bank or savings a/c and who has the right to [do so (?) pay for this] claim the amount.

4The house at 7 The Quadrant is not to be sold under $750,000 (seven hundred & fifty [house] thousand).

5Once the house at 7 Qudrant, [sic] Miramar is sold then the bank must pay [for] to the people above.

[6        The first payment made must be paid to Anne Maree Corbett].

8      The square brackets and italics represent parts of the handwritten note over which the writing has been crossed out but is still partially and mostly legible.

6Money  from  the  savings  a/c  and  [?]  cheque  a/c   will   pay  Anne Maree Corbett for the house she buy plus rates and insurance for house for the next ten years.

7From my savings & cheque a/c I expect to pay for my funeral (ask Bill).

[“I wonder re saving/cheque a/c doesn’t Theo need 2 people to sign authority]

3 Copies 2 → Theo  Initials

1 – you → Ask $s 6th December → 16/12/16 23rd January → 17/Jan/17 702

6th  December – 4000     2 adults & one child 23rd – Jan

[26]             Mr Bevan has deposed he has never seen the note before it was produced in evidence. Nevertheless, the note raises questions about Ms Corbett’s knowledge of and involvement in Theodor’s last wills. On the evidence currently available, it seemed she would generally drive Theodor to the appointments with Mr Bevan (which appear to have principally involved assisting Theodor defend a relationship property claim by a woman who claimed to be his former de facto), and on some occasions she remained in the room. An exception, according to Mr Bevan’s evidence, is when he discussed the terms of Theodor’s wills, when Mr Bevan made it  clear to  both Theodor and  Ms Corbett that if he was to take instructions in relation to a will making Ms Corbett the primary beneficiary of Theodor’s estate that she would need to leave the room (so that he could take instructions solely from Theodor).

[27]             Overall the handwritten note, which as the evidence currently stands seems likely to have been prepared by Ms Corbett and appears to set out Theodor’s instructions to Mr Bevan about his will, raises questions regarding the independence of Theodor’s testamentary disposition which ought to be the subject of further evidence and consideration by the Court before a grant of probate is made.

Theodor’s cognitive decline

[28]             Having reviewed the medical certificates obtained by Theodor from a General Practitioner ahead of signing each of his last three wills, and the accompanying medical notes and history, I am satisfied that there is a live question as to the extent of his testamentary capacity and understanding of his actions which should be the matter of further investigation.

[29]             First, there is some strength in Ms McKeown’s submission that the medical certificates obtained prior to execution of each of Theodor’s wills were not consistent with best practice. Ms McKeown pointed to Woodward v Smith, where the Court of Appeal approved an advisory paper published in the British Medical Journal.9 The approach endorsed by the Court would suggest that it is appropriate for medical practitioners to take a number of steps as part of an assessment of a patient’s mental capacity. In particular, the authors of the advisory paper suggested a medical practitioner should:

(a)get a letter from the solicitor detailing the legal tests;

(b)set aside enough time;

(c)assess (according to standard medical knowledge) whether the patient has dementia;

(d)check that the patient understands each of the Banks v Goodfellow

criteria…, being:

(i)The nature and effect of making a will;

(ii)The extent of his or her estate;

(iii)The claims of those who might expect to benefit under the will; and

(iv)The patient should not have a mental illness that influences making gifts in the will that would not otherwise have been made;

(e)Record the patient’s answers verbatim;

(f)Check facts, such as the extent of the estate, with the solicitor;

(g)Ask about and review previous wills;

9      Woodward v Smith [2009] NZCA 215 at [57], citing Robin Jacoby and Peter Steer “How to assess capacity to make a will” (2007) 335 BMJ 155.

(h)Ask why potential beneficiaries are included or excluded; and

(i)If in doubt as to capacity, seek a second opinion from an experienced professional.

[30]             The certificates obtained in the present case were, by and large, very brief and there is no evidence currently available to indicate whether the steps noted above were followed. For instance, the certificate of Dr Livingstone of 19 February 2016 recorded:

I have examined [Theordor] today and find that he is mentally competent to make a new will.

[31]             A second medical certificate provided by a Dr Ngieng on 6 October 2016 similarly recorded:

I have examined Theodore [sic] today and find that he is mentally competent to make a new will. Thank you for your attention.

[32]             A third medical certificate obtained on 28 March 2017 (again by Dr Ngieng) recorded:

I am writing this letter as the medical practitioner looking after Theodore [sic] Antoniadis for the last 2 years.10 He has been a regular patient at our clinic since 2007. I have access to all his medical record[s] dating back to 2007. I have no concerns about Theodor’s mental capacity to make a decision.

[33]             These brief and somewhat conclusory statements must be read in light of some of the accompanying medical notes of the relevant consultations, which suggest that Theodor had been accompanied to the doctor for the purpose of obtaining these certificates by a woman who is identified on at least one occasion as his “wife”. Further, only nine months after he made his last will—on 12 December 2017—there is evidence that a woman accompanying Theodor to his doctor called “Annie” had expressed concern about the deterioration of his memory having been more marked in the “last six months” before the visit. It seems likely that “Annie” is Ms Anne Maree Corbett.11

10 Ms McKeown submitted that the time period under which Dr Ngieng had recorded Theodor under his care was inaccurate and, based on the available medical records, it was more likely to be in the order of eight months.

11 Theodor’s medical records indicate that a person named Annie, described at various times as his “housemate”, “flatmate”, “boarder”, “friend”, “carer” and “caregiver”, commonly accompanied Theodor to the doctor or attended on his behalf.

[34]             Shortly thereafter, on 5 January 2018, a cognitive assessment test revealed a score of 14 out of 30 indicating definite cognitive decline and impairment. Three days later, Theodor and Ms Corbett purported to swear affidavits in opposition to the relationship property claim Theodor was defending. And  two  days  after  that,  on 10 January 2018, the evidence suggests Theodor changed his bank accounts from ANZ to BNZ. There is no evidence to explain why he made this important change to his banking arrangements.

[35]             By 3 July 2018, Theodor’s GP documented serious concern about his memory and declined to renew his driver licence which had expired in April 2018. Theodor was not seen again by his GP until  six  months later when, on 4 December 2018,  Ms Corbett accompanied Theodor to his appointment. There, he advised the doctor that he was still driving on his expired licence.

[36]             There were no further visits to Theodor’s GP between December 2018 and August 2019. On 31 July 2019, Ms Corbett visited Theodor’s GP alone to raise concerns about a deterioration in his behaviour at home. From August to December 2019, Theodor underwent a number of cognitive assessments confirming a significant cognitive impairment.

[37]             On 26 May 2020, Dr Kate Scott, geriatrician, concluded following a phone call with Ms Corbett that Theodor likely no longer had capacity to appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney.

[38]             Again, these matters raise questions concerning the decline in Theodor’s capacity and whether it was impaired at the time he made any of his last three wills, and also the independence of his testamentary disposition.

Theodor’s use (or misuse) of sleeping pills

[39]             Related to the evidence pointing to a cognitive decline are medical records suggesting that Theodor was using sleeping pills inappropriately to deal with insomnia. The evidence suggests that he was likely using the medication beyond the prescribed dosage and that his potential dependence or overuse of it became a concern for his GP and responsible geriatrician.

[40]             Whether the use of sleeping pills was excessive, and what if any impact use of the pills might have had on his capacity and ability to resist pressure in relation to his testamentary disposition, is a further matter leading me to consider that an application for administration in solemn form by Mr Bevan is appropriate.

Evidence suggesting Ms Corbett used Theodor’s bank account to purchase personal items while he was in care

[41]             Evidence provided by Dr Antoniadis setting out his analysis of Theodor’s BNZ account statements indicate a significant increase in day-to-day living expenses during periods when it seems unlikely the expenditure related to Theodor’s personal needs. A summary of that evidence is sufficient:

(a)From February 2018 to July 2018, a pattern of cash withdrawals from Theodor’s BNZ card began, alongside increasing regular use of his funds at supermarkets and petrol stations.

(b)On  9 November 2018,  Theodor  visited  BNZ   with   Ms Corbett.  Dr Antoniadis’ evidence is that Ms Corbett requested a joint account and enquired about the ability to sell Theodor’s house. The evidence suggests Ms Corbett was surprised that she would need to obtain legal authority in order to do this.

(c)In late 2018 and early 2019, there were a number of significant bank transactions, such as breaking term deposits and placing money from term deposits on call.

(d)On 11 September 2019, in an assessment for respite care, it was noticed that Ms Corbett had become increasingly involved in Theodor’s finances. Around this time, according to Dr Antoniadis’ analysis, there was a further marked increase in spending from Theodor’s bank account and large cash withdrawals.

(e)On 10 June 2020, Belinda Giles from Miranda Home Care called Theodor’s GP to report her concern that “Annie pays the bills anyway without [an Enduring Power of Attorney]”.

(f)Ms Corbett and Theodor visited Dr Ngieng on 4 August 2020 at which time Theodor was reported to have said he was happy for Ms Corbett to be overseeing his money, as she held his card and did shopping for him anyway.

(g)Throughout 2020 and 2021, the expenditure from Theodor’s card was significantly higher than might be expected for a single man of his age. For example, an average of $691 a week was spent at the supermarket during 2020 and $558 a week during 2021,12 on top of ATM withdrawals, bills and petrol.

(h)In addition to these matters, Dr Antoniadis highlights several transactions, including:

(i)petrol station transactions in Taihape and Papamoa in December 2019 when Theodor was in hospital care in Wellington;

(ii)supermarket transactions exceeding Theodor’s reasonable food costs. For instance, $711 at various supermarkets over a six day period in June 2021, and $1,279.48 between 21 December 2021 and 5 January 2022 while Theodor was in respite care at Alexandra Rest Home;

(iii)transactions while Theodor was in Wellington Hospital between 11 and 22 February 2022, including Hell Pizza, supermarkets, fuel and ATM withdrawals; and

12     Dr Antoniadis’ analysis suggests that this was a significant increase from the average weekly supermarket expenditure in 2018 of $365.

(iv)cash     withdrawals     using     Theodor’s     card     between December 2021 and February 2022.

[42]             Dr Antoniadis has obtained receipts from New World Miramar for purchases while Theodor was in a rest home and in Wellington Hospital. According to the Caveator, they reveal the purchase of items which Theodor would never have purchased for himself, including:

(a)regular purchases of wine;

(b)regular purchases of menthol cigarettes (Theodor did not smoke menthol cigarettes); and

(c)women’s toiletries.

[43]             Eventually, it seems by February 2022, BNZ was sufficiently concerned about Ms Corbett’s use of Theodor’s bank card that it put a freeze on his account and blocked the card. In evidence also is a letter from Ms Corbett which, implicitly, appears to accept that she was using Theodor’s bank account and funds, but suggests that the use of those funds was not for her own benefit.

[44]             Once again, it is not a matter for me to determine at this stage, but the outline of the issues raised by the evidence indicates the importance of an investigation by the appropriate executor into the use of Theodor’s monies during a period when it appears likely that he lacked capacity and where, at present, there is a suggestion some of those funds were not used for his benefit.

The circumstances surrounding Mr Bevan’s introduction to Theodor and Mr Bevan’s familial connection to Ms Corbett

[45]             The  evidence  indicates  that  Mr Bevan  was  introduced  to  Theodor   by Ms Corbett. Initially, the instruction appears to have involved assisting Theodor’s defence of a relationship property claim which Theodor was facing in 2015. During the course of that retainer it appears Theodor raised the issue of a new will with     Mr Bevan.

[46]             Mr Bevan has quite properly disclosed his connection to Ms Corbett. She was married to  Mr Bevan’s  father’s  cousin  (making  Ms Corbett’s  former  husband  Mr Bevan’s first cousin once removed). In addition, Mr Bevan has deposed that he met Ms Corbett around 1985. They were neighbours in Titahi Bay until the early 1990s:

… when she separated from her husband and moved away. My late wife remained friends with her and they would contact each other intermittently over the intervening years.

[47]             Following enquiry from counsel for Mr Antoniadis, Mr Bevan filed a supplementary affidavit of 23 March 2023 in which he deposed:

[4]Ms Corbett was married to my father’s first cousin. They got married nearly 49 years ago and had three children. Ms Corbett and my father’s first cousin separated in the early 1990’s and he has since remarried. As I stated in my previous affidavit, Ms Corbett and her former husband were my neighbours in Titahi Bay until they separated and Ms Corbett moved away.

[5]I did not mention in my previous affidavit that Ms Corbett’s former husband was my father’s first cousin as I did not think that was relevant but in view of Dr Antoniadis’ query, I now disclose it to the Court.

[48]             While nothing that I say here should be taken in any way to be a criticism of Mr Bevan’s conduct,  given  the  (distant)  familial  relationship  between  he  and  Ms Corbett, and  the  subsequent  connection  between  Mr Bevan,  his  wife  and  Ms Corbett, a question arises as to whether there was the necessary degree of independence in his dealings with Theodor, and whether it was necessary for him to disclose to Theodor the nature of his connection to Ms Corbett and her family before continuing to act in relation to preparation of his wills.

Conclusion and result

[49]             For these reasons, Dr Antoniadis has raised sufficient doubt in my mind as to whether Theodor possessed testamentary capacity and was free from any improper pressure or influence when he made his last three wills to require a full investigation. Mr Bevan is therefore directed to make application for probate in solemn form.

[50]             It is important to reinforce that the practice of a court in “show cause” cases is not to decide the ultimate issues relating to the validity of the will or otherwise and nothing I have said—based necessarily on incomplete evidence—should be taken to suggest a view on the merits of the various factual issues addressed in this judgment.

[51]I make the following orders and directions:

(a)the caveator’s show cause action succeeds;

(b)I direct the executor under the last will of Theodor Iordan Antoniadis to make an application for probate in solemn form under s 61(d)(ii) of the Administration Act;

(c)a fixture for the enquiry hearing should now be scheduled; and

(d)leave to apply is reserved.

[52]             Costs are reserved until the determination of the application for probate in solemn form.

Isac J

Solicitors:

Good Law Limited, Porirua for Executor Duncan Cotterill, Wellington for Caveator

Appendix

Comparison by the executor of the three wills made by Theodor Antoniadis between October 2016 and March 2017 Note: the amendments between each version of the will have been emphasised
Details	Will executed 17 October 2016	Will executed 24 March 2017	Will executed 29 March 2017
Executor	Geoffrey John Stretch	William David  Bevan	William David Bevan
Bequests to charities	Greek Orthodox Church $200,000 Wellington Hospital children’s ward $200,000 The Life Flight Trust $100,000 The Home of Compassion at Island Bay $20,000	Greek Orthodox Church $100,000 Wellington Hospital children’s ward $100,000 The Life Flight Trust $100,00 The Home of Compassion at Island Bay $20,000	Greek Orthodox Church $100,000 Wellington Hospital children’s ward $100,000 The Life Flight Trust $20,000 The Home of Compassion at Island Bay $20,000
Specific bequests and gifts to individuals	Michael Antoniadis (nephew) $5000	Emanuela  Gheracopolous  (niece) $200,000	Emanuela Gheracopolous (niece) $200,000
Vasi Antoniadis and Mary Mavropoulos deceased wife’s jewellery	Michael Antoniadis (nephew) $5000	Michael Antoniadis (nephew) $5000
Anne Maree Corbett contents of home except jewellery	Vasi Antoniadis and Mary Mavropoulos deceased wife’s jewellery	Vasi Antoniadis and Mary Mavropoulos deceased wife’s jewellery
Anne Maree Corbett contents of home except jewellery	Anne Maree Corbett contents of home except jewellery
Life interest	$450,000 to Anne Maree Corbett to be used solely to purchase a house for her use and enjoyment and upon her death house and remainder to her named grandchildren	$450,000 to Anne Maree Corbett to be used solely to purchase a house for her use and enjoyment and upon her death house and remainder to her named grandchildren	$450,000 to Anne Maree Corbett to be used solely to purchase a house for her use and enjoyment and upon her death house and remainder to her named grandchildren

(a correction to the  names of the  grandchildren)
Sum for insurance and rates	A sum equal to the amount required for house insurance and rates to Anne Maree Corbett for 10 years	A sum equal to the amount required for house insurance and rates to Anne Maree Corbett for 10 years
Residue	Anne Maree Corbett and if she should predecease him, to her grandchildren as named above	Anne Maree Corbett and if she should predecease him, to her grandchildren as named above	Anne Maree Corbett and if she should predecease him, to her grandchildren as named above