Estate of Hudson

Case [2025] NZHC 313


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-565

[2025] NZHC 313

IN THE MATTER of the Wills Act 2007

AND

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an order that a document be declared a valid will of the deceased Jacqueline Dorothy Hudson

MURRAY WILLIAM DAHM

Applicant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

B J Williams for Applicant

Judgment:

26 February 2025


JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

(Costs)


[1]        In a judgment dated 25 February 2025, I made orders declaring a document, a draft unexecuted will provided to Ms Hudson just before she died, as a valid will and to make a minor correction to that will.1

[2]        Before the hearing, Mr Williams filed a memorandum on behalf of Mr Dahm seeking costs against Stephen Hudson in the sum of $4,063. Mr Williams calculated this amount, on a 2B basis, based on the steps taken by Stephen Hudson up until the time he withdrew his opposition to Mr Dahm’s application.2 Mr Dahm proposes that


1      Re Estate of Hudson [2025] NZHC 281.

2      High Court Rules 2016, schs 2 and 3.

these costs be deducted from Mr Hudson’s $40,000 beneficial interest in the deceased’s estate.

[3]        I gave Mr Hudson an opportunity to respond to these costs submissions and indicated I would then determine costs on the papers.

[4]Mr Hudson has since emailed the Court stating:

I have read that the Court costs of $4,063 will be debited from my payment of

$40,000 from the JD Hudson estate. We do not have any objection to this.

[5]        I am grateful to Mr Hudson for promptly indicating his agreement to this course of action, which is appropriate. It reflects the usual approach under the High Court Rules that costs are payable by an unsuccessful party to a successful party.3  Mr Williams also referred to Moleta v Darlow in which costs were ordered to be paid out of a beneficiary’s share of an estate.4

[6]        Accordingly, I order that Mr Stephen Hudson pay the estate costs of $4,063, as agreed, by way of deduction from his beneficial interest in the deceased’s estate.

McHerron J

Solicitors:
Bryce Williams Law Limited, Lower Hutt for Applicant

3      Rule 14.2(1)(a).

4      Moleta v Darlow [2022] NZHC 1330.

Details
AGLC
Estate of Hudson [2025] NZHC 313
Case
[2025] NZHC 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Estate of Hudson involved the determination of the validity of a will and the subsequent costs associated with the proceedings. The applicant, Murray William Dahm, sought a declaration that a draft unexecuted will was the valid will of Jacqueline Dorothy Hudson. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, issued a ruling on 26 February 2025, declaring the draft will as valid and making minor corrections. The matter then turned to the issue of costs, with Mr Dahm applying for costs against Stephen Hudson, who had initially opposed the application but subsequently withdrew his opposition.

The legal issues before the court included whether the costs incurred by Mr Dahm should be deducted from Stephen Hudson's share of the estate and whether the court's usual approach to costs applied in this context. Mr Dahm's legal representative argued for the deduction of costs from Stephen Hudson's interest, citing the usual approach under the High Court Rules and a previous case, Moleta v Darlow, where similar costs were ordered.

The court accepted the reasoning and agreed with the applicant's submissions, noting that Stephen Hudson had not objected to the proposed deduction of costs from his share of the estate. The court confirmed that under the High Court Rules, costs are generally payable by an unsuccessful party to a successful party and cited the case of Moleta v Darlow as precedent. Therefore, the court ruled that Stephen Hudson would pay the costs of $4,063 by way of deduction from his beneficial interest in the deceased's estate.

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.