Estate of Edmonds - [2025] NZHC 1865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-613039

[2025] NZHC 1865

IN THE ESTATE
of MARY TAHUHU EDMONDS

Deceased

Hearing: 30 May 2025

Appearances:

C Light for Applicants

Dora Edmonds in person (by telephone)

Judgment:

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] Mary Tahuhu Edmonds died on 9 April 2022. Her last will is dated 6 April 2011. In her will, Mary appointed three of her daughters Veronica, Rachel and Dora as executors.1

[2] It is more than three years since Mary’s death, but probate has still not been granted. Veronica and Rachel have attempted to obtain Dora’s agreement and cooperation in applying for probate together with them or, alternatively, for her to renounce probate. Neither of these options has been acceptable to Dora and so a stalemate has been reached.

[3]In monetary terms, it is a small estate with a current net asset position of about

$155,000. There are seven residuary beneficiaries. The costs of litigation are draining what remains of the estate. Veronica and Rachel ask the Court to grant probate of the

1 For convenience, I use Mary and her daughters’ first names in this judgment, without meaning any disrespect.

RE ESTATE OF EDMONDS [2025] NZHC 1865 [9 JULY 2025]

will to them, to the exclusion of Dora, so they can administer and distribute their mother’s estate to the beneficiaries without further delays and costs.

[4] On 24 October 2024, the applicants sought an order nisi that probate of Mary’s will be granted to them.2 On 5 November 2024, the Registrar issued an order nisi that unless Dora showed cause why the order should not be made absolute, probate of Mary’s will would be granted to the applicants.

Dora’s position

[5] Dora, who refers to herself as: dora-elizabeth-mary:house of edmonds: living sovereign, asserts that her sisters have breached their fiduciary duty in their haste to distribute their mother’s property. I asked Dora to specify which property she was referring to. She said: surfboards, clothing, bedding and a bed, a leather lounge suite, all her personal things, jewellery, including a wedding ring, a ring given to her by Dora’s brother, cold press juicers and her taonga tuku iho to be utilised on the whenua to benefit the whānau. Dora also expressed concerns that her sisters had broken into a storage unit to give them access to their mother’s chattels and that Rachel had taken
$20,000 out of Mary’s bank account.

[6] Dora is concerned that her mother was not in a position to make decisions for herself in the period leading up to her death. Dora disputes that the withdrawal of money was done with her mother’s permission.

[7] Dora also expressed concerns about matters before her mother died, including the way in which Dora was informed of her mother’s death, that arrangements made for her tangi were not in accordance with tikanga or her mother’s wishes and that there was inadequate consultation with Dora and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Estate of Edmonds 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1865
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of Estate of Mary Tahuhu Edmonds, deceased, was heard on 30 May 2025. The dispute involved three of Mary’s daughters, Veronica, Rachel, and Dora, who were appointed as executors in Mary’s will dated 6 April 2011. Despite more than three years having elapsed since Mary’s death on 9 April 2022, probate of the will had not been granted due to a stalemate between Veronica and Rachel, who sought to proceed with probate, and Dora, who refused to cooperate or renounce her role as executor. The applicants sought an order nisi for probate to be granted to them, excluding Dora. Dora, on the other hand, raised concerns about the executors' handling of the estate, including the alleged unauthorized access to a storage unit and withdrawal of funds from Mary’s bank account. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the way her mother’s death was managed and the distribution of personal items. Dora argued that she should be the sole executor to ensure the will was followed according to her interpretation.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Dora had neglected or refused to prove the will or renounce probate within three months of Mary’s death, and if so, whether probate should be granted to Veronica and Rachel to the exclusion of Dora. The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Administration Act 1969 and the Wills Act 2007, particularly whether ademption had occurred regarding the property mentioned in the will. The Court found that Dora had indeed neglected and refused to prove the will or renounce probate, satisfying the requirements of Section 19 of the Administration Act. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Dora’s interpretation of the will, particularly her intention to use estate funds for purposes no longer provided for in the will due to ademption, was inconsistent with Mary’s intentions. The Court found that granting probate to Veronica and Rachel was the most expedient and practical course of action to ensure the proper administration of the estate in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

The Court granted probate of Mary’s will to Veronica and Rachel, excluding Dora. It also ordered that costs be paid from Dora’s share of the estate. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the will and the necessity of expeditious administration to avoid further costs and delays.

Orders