Gorringe v Pointon

[2022] NZHC 1621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-000349

[2022] NZHC 1621

BETWEEN

ROMILEY CHANTAL GORRINGE and ASHLEY SHAYLIN GORRINGE
Plaintiffs

AND

JUDITH ANNE POINTON and SUSAN

RUTH HENDERSON as executors of the Estate of Joan Blair Gorringe

Defendants

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

J Hosking and C Drought for the Plaintiffs

K Catran for the First named Defendant (as beneficiary) S Scott for the Second named Defendant

Judgment:

11 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J [COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2022 at 11 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GORRINGE v POINTON [2022] NZHC 1621 [11 July 2022]

Introduction

[1]                 Members of the Gorringe family have been engaged in a contest over the Will of Joan Gorringe (Joan). Joan died on 24 October 2019. She was 101 years old. A full description of the background to this proceeding is contained in my judgment on the substantive dispute.1 This judgment deals with the various costs claims following my judgment.

[2]                 The plaintiffs are two of Joan’s adult grandchildren who live in the United States. Their father, Peter Gorringe, was the son of Joan and Erl Gorringe. Peter passed away unexpectedly on 10 November 2015 following a medical event.

[3]                 The defendants, Judith Pointon (Judith) and Susan Henderson, are the executors of Joan’s estate (the Estate). Judith is Joan and Erl’s daughter and the plaintiffs’ aunt. Ms Henderson is a principal of Fenton McFadden and was also Joan’s solicitor but is a defendant only in her capacity as co-executor of Joan’s Wills.

[4]                 The plaintiffs challenged the validity of Joan’s Wills made on 16 March 2016 (2016 Will) and 19 November 2015 (2015 Will) respectively. They alleged that Joan lacked testamentary capacity at the time of both Wills. They also alleged undue influence on the part of Judith and breach of fiduciary duty by the executors. They sought orders to recall probate of the 2016 Will, declarations that both Wills are invalid, and for the grant of probate in respect of an earlier Will made by Joan in June 2011. That Will had been more favourable to the plaintiffs.2

[5]                 On 3 March 2022, I dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. I determined on the weight of the evidence that Joan had testamentary capacity.3 I also found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that Joan’s 2016 Will was the product of undue influence or that

1      See Gorringe v Pointon [2022] NZHC 342.

2      The June 2011 will contained a gift over clause which meant that in the event of the death of Peter or Judith before Joan, their share of Joan’s estate would pass to their respective children, Joan’s grandchildren. This would have seen the plaintiffs receive a much greater share of the Estate than under the 2016 and 2015 Wills which did not contain a gift over clause but instead made specific provision of $50,000 for each of Joan’s grandchildren.