IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2017-404-002655
[2018] NZHC 230
UNDER Sections 14 and 16 of the Wills Act 2007 IN THE ESTATE
of PETER JOHN ROBERT DRURY
AND
DENISE PATRICIA O’REILLY
Applicant
Hearing: 5 February 2018 Counsel:
J Strauss for Applicant
Judgment:
23 February 2018
JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J
This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors/Counsel:
North Harbour Law, Orewa. J Strauss, Auckland.
ESTATE OF DRURY [2018] NZHC 230 [23 February 2018]
The issue
[1] Mr Peter Drury, or Peter, died on 28 July 2017. His daughter, Ms Denise O’Reilly, seeks an order a document is Peter’s last will. The application, which is governed by the Wills Act 2007, is supported by Mr Stephen Drury, Peter’s son. A not unimportant question arises: is a digital document a “document”—and hence a will—under the Act?
Background
[2]The facts are uncontested.
[3] Mr Tony Edwards has been Peter’s solicitor for at least 25 years. In 1992 Mr Edwards prepared a will for Peter. All of Peter’s estate went to his wife if she survived him. But if she did not, his property was to be split equally between: a) the SPCA; and b) Denise and Stephen. The original of this will has been lost or destroyed, but nothing turns on this.
[4] In 2007 Peter instructed Mr Edwards to draft a new will. Peter’s estate was to be divided equally between his two children. By then, Peter’s wife had died. It follows no provision was made for the SPCA. It remains unclear if this will was executed.
[5] In 2011 Peter contacted Mr Edwards again with instructions to prepare a new will. This iteration divided Peter’s estate into three equal parts: one to Denise, one to Stephen, with the final part to be shared between Stephen’s two children. The will was not executed because Peter again changed his mind; he then wished to provide for all grandchildren.
[6] When Peter died, his son and daughter remembered he had told them he had prepared a “final request” document on his computer. They found it there. Materially, Peter was the only person to use the computer (at his home). An expert has examined the computer. The document was created on 20 February 2016 and last edited on 5 April 2016. Peter was home between these dates.
[7] As its name implies, the “final request” document sets out Peter’s wishes in relation to funeral arrangements. The document also contains Peter’s intentions in relation to his estate:
I wish the property to be sold and the money raised to be split as follows 40% to Denise Patricia O’Reilly, 40% to Stephen John Robert Drury, and the remaining 20% put in trust for my grand-children, to be used for their education in later life. This will be their money, and for education purposes.
...
[8] Peter’s…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Estate of Drury and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NZHC 230
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether a digital document could be considered a "document" for the purposes of the Wills Act. The court found that a digital document could be considered a "document" for several reasons. Firstly, the definitions in the Wills Act and the Interpretation Act 1999 support this interpretation, as a digital document reproduces words in a visible form when viewed on a screen. Secondly, this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Wills Act, which was intended to modernise the substantive law and remove certain anomalies. Thirdly, the court found that the purpose of section 14 of the Act was to provide a mechanism for curial validation of documents that express the testamentary wishes of a deceased person. Fourthly, the court found that the Wills Act must be interpreted in light of today's technological conditions, the proliferation of digital documents and related reliance upon them by all members of society. Fifthly, the court found that it would be absurd if the law treated the "final request" document as not a will simply because Peter did not print it before he died. Sixthly, the court found that this approach was consistent with other decisions in relation to section 14 of the Act.
The court found that the "final request" document was a valid will. The court ordered that the "final request" document is Peter's will.
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.