Hall v Radich-Chaytor - [2020] NZHC 409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-952

[2020] NZHC 409

BETWEEN
GEORGINA MIRANDA MARY HALL

Plaintiff

AND

DOROTHY JUNE RADICH-CHAYTOR

Defendant

Hearing:
4 November 2019 and 18 December 2019

Further submissions: 4 February 2020

Appearances:

M J Radich for Plaintiff

D A Laurenson QC and C R D Williams for Defendant

Judgment:

5 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Contents

Background [1]

The will is not contested [11]

Application to adduce evidence  [16]
Evidence  [22]
Application  [31]

Trustee corporations [36]

The will [37]

Selection of the executor/trustee [41]

Expediency  [43]
The history  [65]
Conclusion  [99]

Probate and matters arising [101]

Costs [106]

GEORGINA MIRANDA MARY HALL v DOROTHY JUNE RADICH-CHAYTOR [2020] NZHC 409 [5 March 2020]

Background

[1] Mrs Radich-Chaytor married Mr Anthony Chaytor in April 2014. Mr Chaytor at that stage was aged 80 and Mrs Radich-Chaytor was 12 years younger. Mr Chaytor had never been married before. He died in 2018 leaving an estate valued at between
$15 million and $30–40 million. His widow, Mrs Radich-Chaytor and his niece, Ms Hall, are the parties to this proceeding. Now both seek the appointment of a corporate trustee to administer the estate and trusts. They cannot agree on which corporate trustee.

[2] Mr Chaytor had no children. His closest blood relatives were his seven nieces. His one nephew died in 2018. Mr Chaytor’s nieces, except for Sarah Frances Clervaux Chaytor, have supported Ms Hall in these proceedings.1 Unfortunately, the relationship between Mrs Radich-Chaytor and Ms Hall became tense even before Mr Chaytor died on 23 September 2018 at age 84.

[3] Under the will of Mr Chaytor executed on 14 October 2016 Mrs Radich- Chaytor and Mr John Chantery-Harris were appointed executors and trustees. The will after personal bequests and granting a life interest in Mr Chaytor’s home residence to Mrs Radich-Chaytor directed the trustees to divide the residue of the Estate into 14 shares. These were to be held on trust as to seven shares for Mrs Radich-Chaytor if she survived Mr Chaytor; five shares to be divided among the nieces and nephews living at Mr Chaytor’s death and two shares for such charities as the trustees decided.

[4] Before Mr Chaytor died Ms Hall had filed proceedings in the District Court concerning his property. A mediation was held concerning those District Court proceedings which resulted in an agreement between Ms Hall and Ms Radich-Chaytor about how Mr Chaytor’s property would be divided on his death. That settlement would have varied the distribution set out in Mr Chaytor’s will which is now before this Court. That settlement is now the subject of a further dispute. A deed intended to record the terms of the settlement was never executed. The issue is now the subject of further proceedings brought against Mrs Radich-Chaytor and due for hearing in March 2020.

1 My references to Ms Hall are to her as representative of those nieces supporting Ms Hall.

[5] However,…

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.

Continue reading Hall v Radich-Chaytor

Details

AGLC: Hall v Radich-Chaytor [2020] NZHC 409
Case: [2020] NZHC 409
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hall v Radich-Chaytor, the widow and niece of the deceased, Mr Chaytor, contested the appointment of a corporate trustee to administer his estate. The will, dated 14 October 2016, appointed Mrs Radich-Chaytor and Mr John Chantery-Harris as executors and trustees. However, both renounced the appointment, leading to the application for a replacement trustee. The primary issue before the court was which of the proposed trustee corporations, Perpetual Trust or Trustees Executors Limited (TEL), should be appointed as the executor and trustee of Mr Chaytor's estate.

The court considered various factors, including the expertise and experience of the proposed trustee corporations, the views of the beneficiaries, and the potential impact of distrust between the parties on the efficient administration of the estate. The court held that while both Perpetual Trust and TEL were capable of administering the estate, the determinative factor was the distrust expressed by Mrs Radich-Chaytor towards Perpetual Trust, stemming from its association with a lawyer from the firm acting for Ms Hall. This distrust, combined with the other circumstances, weighed against Perpetual Trust being appointed.

Consequently, the court appointed Trustees Executors Limited as the sole administrator/executor of Mr Chaytor's estate. The court also ordered the removal of the named executors in the will. The court declined to order a review of the estate administration in 12 months, considering it unnecessary given the experience of TEL. Costs were to be awarded on a 2B basis and paid by the estate.

Orders