Hall

[2017] NZHC 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2017-404-000816 [2017] NZHC 1009

IN THE MATTER	of s 14 of the Wills Act 2007
AND
IN THE MATTER	of an application by CAROL ANNE HALL and PETER WALTER HALL for an order that a document be declared a valid will of the deceased ALAN WALTER HALL

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	17 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 17 May 2017 at 4.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

HALL [2017] NZHC 1009 [17 May 2017]

[1]      Alan Walter Hall died in Auckland on 12 October 2016 without leaving a valid will.  He did, however, leave a document signed on 8 August 2014 that has the appearance of a will.  Two of Mr Hall’s children, Carol Hall and Peter Hall, who are named as executors in that document, have applied for an order that it be declared a valid will under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007.

[2]      Under the Wills Act a valid will is one that is made in writing and signed and witnessed in the prescribed manner.1   One of those requirements is two witnesses to the execution of the will. Section 14 allows this Court to make an order declaring a document that appears to be a will but does not comply with the formal requirements to be a valid will “if satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intentions”.

[3]      At the time of his death Mr Hall was in a de facto relationship with Barbara

Ann Thompson and he had three adult children. He had made a valid will in March

2005 under which his residuary estate was to be divided two-thirds in favour of Ms

Thompson and one-third to be distributed equally to his children.  Under the August

2014 document half of the residuary estate is to go to Ms Thompson with the other half to the Mr Hall’s children.

[4]      The circumstances in which the August 2014 document came to be produced are as follows.   In March 2013 Mr Hall telephoned a legal executive with Gibbs Mills & Livingstone and told her that he wanted to change his will.   He gave instructions that included the division of the residuary estate equally between Ms Thompson and his children.  The legal executive prepared a draft will and sent it to him but heard nothing further.

[5]      Carol Hall later had a conversation with her father in which he told her that he had decided not to bother with the lawyers but would sort out the signing of the will himself.  He was, however, worried about the “draft” stamp on the will that the solicitor had sent to him.  Carol re-typed the will, changing only the spelling of her own second name which had been spelt incorrectly in the draft will.  She gave that

document to Mr Hall.  On 8 August 2014 Mr Hall asked Ross Hammonds to witness

1      Wills Act 2007, s 11.

his will.  This conversation occurred at a bowling club.  Mr Hammonds is, in fact, a JP and knew that a valid will required two witnesses but overlooked that fact at the time.  He witnessed Mr Hall’s signature himself without arranging a second witness.

[6]      Mr  Hall  gave  a  signed  original  of  the  August  2014  document  to  Ms Thompson.  She has given an affidavit confirming this fact and recording her consent to an order declaring the will to be valid.  Mr Hall also gave a signed original of the document to Carol. He telephoned his son, Peter, to tell him that he had changed his will so that Ms Thompson’s share of the residuary estate would be reduced from two-thirds to one-half.

[7]      I   am   satisfied   that   the  August   2014   document   reflected   Mr   Hall’s testamentary intentions when he signed it.  Apart from Ms Thompson, who consents to the validation of the document as a will, making an order under s 14 will not adversely affect any other party. I accordingly make an order under s 14 declaring the document annexed as exhibit “PWH2” to the affidavit of Peter Walter Hall sworn

25 January 2017 to be a valid will.

P Courtney J