Estate of Waa - [2023] NZHC 3749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2997

[2023] NZHC 3749

IN THE MATTER OF The Estate of WUTI WELLINGTON MURIWAI WAA
Applicant

AND IN THE MATTER OF

An application by JACQUELINE LESLIE DEMETER

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A Gilchrist for Applicant

Judgment:

18 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 18 December 2023 at 3.00 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Boyle Mathieson/A Gilchrist, Auckland

Re Estate of Wuti Wellington Muriwai Waa [2023] NZHC 3749 [18 December 2023]

[1] Mr Wuti Wellington Muriwai Waa died on 7 July 2023. He was serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of his death.

[2] Mr Waa’s only asset was a credit balance of approximately $56,000 held in a Kiwibank account. He was not married at the time of his death and had only one child, his daughter Jacqueline Leslie Demeter.

[3] Whilst in prison Mr Waa executed a document on 20 June 2015. Ms Demeter believes that it represents his testamentary intentions. However, the document does not satisfy the formal requirements of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act). Ms Demeter therefore seeks an order under s 14 of the Act declaring this document to be a valid will.

Background

[4] The document in question is headed “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WUTI WELLINGTON MURIWAI WAA”. It then goes on to provide:

I, Wuti Wellington Muriwai Waa an adult residing at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison, Private Bag 1600, Napier 4142 being of sound mind, declare this to be my Last Will and Testament. I revoke all former Wills and Codicils previously made by me.

Article I

I appoint Jackqueline Leslie Waa/Kee-Demer born on the 12th day of April 1989 as my Personal Representative to execute and administer this Will and ask that she be permitted to serve without Court supervision and without posting bond. If Jackqueline Leslie Waa/Kete-Demer is unwilling or unable to serve, then I appoint Mary Ann Waa-Huiti as my Personal Representative to administer this Will and ask that she be permitted to serve without Court supervision and without posting bond.

Article II

I direct my Personal Representative to pay out of my residuary estate all of the expenses of my last illness, administration expenses, all legally enforceable creditor claims, estate taxes, inheritance taxes and all other Government charges imposed by reason of my death without seeking reimbursement from or charging any person for any part of the taxes and charges paid, and if necessary, reasonable funeral expenses, including the cost of any suitable marker for my grave without the necessity of an order of Court approving said expenses.

Article III

I bequeath and give all the rest and remainder of my residuary estate as follows:

100% to my daughter Jackqueline Leslie Waa/Kete-Demer.

Article IV

Should my daughter Jackqueline Leslie Waa/KeteDemer not survive me by thirty (30) days, her share shall be…

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 Waa 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: [2023] NZHC 3749
Decision Date: 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court involved the estate of Wuti Wellington Muriwai Waa, who died on 7 July 2023 while serving a prison sentence. His only asset was a credit balance of approximately $56,000 held in a Kiwibank account. Waa was not married at the time of his death but had one child, Jacqueline Leslie Demeter. Demeter believed that a document executed by Waa on 20 June 2015 represented his testamentary intentions. However, this document did not meet the formal requirements of the Wills Act 2007. Demeter sought an order under section 14 of the Act, declaring this document to be a valid will.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the document executed by Waa on 20 June 2015, despite not complying with the formal requirements of the Wills Act 2007, expressed Waa’s testamentary intentions. The court had to determine whether it could declare this document to be a valid will under section 14 of the Act. The court was required to focus on the substance and intention of the document rather than its form, ensuring that Waa's testamentary intentions were not thwarted by technicalities.

Justice Lang concluded that Waa intended the document he signed to operate as his last will and testament. The document clearly represented Waa’s testamentary intentions, satisfying the requirements of section 14 of the Wills Act 2007. Therefore, the court made an order declaring the document dated 20 June 2015 to be a valid will. This decision allowed Demeter to administer her father's estate according to the terms outlined in the document.

In summary, the court found that the document in question did indeed reflect Waa’s testamentary intentions and ordered that it be recognised as a valid will.

Orders