IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-000309
[2025] NZHC 2143
IN THE MATTER OF Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007 IN THE MATTER OF
the estate of KEVIN JOHN PURCELL of Wellington, New Zealand, Catholic Priest (Deceased)
IN THE MATTER OF
an application by BERNARD MICHAEL PURCELL of Taupo, Retired
Applicant
Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel:
M B Ast for Applicant
Judgment:
1 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J
[1] The applicant applies for an order that a draft will of his brother, Kevin Purcell, be declared a valid will under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act).
Background
[2] Mr Purcell died at Porirua on 21 December 2024. The applicant is his brother and the sole executor named in his will dated 29 April 2010. The applicant remains the sole executor in the draft will, prepared in 2020, that is the subject of this application.
[3] The applicant and his wife, Judith Purcell, have both sworn affidavits setting out the basis on which they say the draft will should be declared valid.
RE ESTATE OF K J PURCELL [2025] NZHC 2143 [1 August 2025]
[4] The applicant states that he was very close with his brother, whom he loved and admired greatly. The applicant describes Mr Purcell as a kind, generous, intelligent and courageous person with immense perseverance. He says this is demonstrated by Mr Purcell’s 30-year commitment as a pilot and graduating from Otago University to become a Catholic priest to allow him to better serve his community. The applicant says he and Mr Purcell shared many traits, and one of those was keeping diaries throughout their lives. Although the applicant cannot locate Mr Purcell’s diary for the year 2020, he has written in his own diary about the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2020 draft will.
[5] On 6 January 2020, the applicant met with Mr Purcell and spent a significant amount of time discussing the changes he wished to make to his will. The applicant noted these changes on a copy of Mr Purcell’s 2010 will. Mr Purcell wanted the draft will to reflect the changes in his circumstances since his 2010 will. The changes included removal of gifts of his Otago University academic gown, a book cabinet, and collection of theological books, as Mr Purcell had already gifted these items between 2010 and 2020.
[6] A gift of $10,000 to Mr Purcell’s sister was removed because Mr Purcell felt she would benefit more from receiving it before he died. Mr Purcell gifted the first part of that sum to his sister in July 2020, but she died prior to receiving the second instalment of $5,000 on 22 September 2020.
[7] The applicant did not want the proposed gift of $20,000 to him and, in substitution, Mr Purcell wished to recognise the applicant and his wife’s three children (Mr Purcell’s niece and nephews), who were close to him, namely…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Estate of Purcell 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
- [2025] NZHC 2143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
La Hood J determined that the draft will did indeed express Kevin's testamentary intentions. The court accepted the evidence from Bernard and his wife, Judith, who provided detailed accounts of the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the draft will. Their testimony, supported by Bernard's contemporaneous diary entries, indicated that the draft will was meticulously prepared to reflect Kevin's updated wishes. Furthermore, the court noted the general consistency between the 2010 will and the draft will, except for the addition of provisions for Bernard and Judith's children. The court also considered Craig Ranapia's acceptance of the draft will, despite his apparent confusion in the handwritten note, which seemed to be a result of Kevin's deteriorating health. The court concluded that the draft will was a clear expression of Kevin's intentions, whereas the handwritten note was incomplete and inconsistent with the draft will. Therefore, the court validated the draft will as Kevin's valid will.
The final orders of the court validated the draft will, annexing it as Exhibit B to Bernard's affidavit dated 11 April 2025. This decision ensured that the draft will would be recognised as Kevin's last will, allowing for the proper administration and distribution of his estate in accordance with his intentions.
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.