Halpin v Darlow - [2024] NZHC 3352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-428

[2024] NZHC 3352

UNDER High Court Rules 2016, Part 27 and Rule 27.34

IN THE MATTER OF

the ESTATE OF BARBARA MORRIS

and the grant of Probate of a Will and Codicil by the High Court at Wellington on 15 July 2022

BETWEEN

SALLY-ANNE HALPIN and
DAVID CHRISTOPHER STAFFORD
MORRIS and
TIMOTHY STAFFORD MORRIS

Plaintiffs

AND

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT DARLOW and

DAVID ROBERT APPLEBY, as Executors of the Estate of Barbara Morris

First Defendants

RICHARD JOHN STAFFORD MORRIS

Second Defendant

Hearing: 17 October 2024

Appearances:

J Cundy for the plaintiffs

P Napier for the second defendant

Judgment:

12 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2024 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HALPIN v DARLOW [2024] NZHC 3352 [12 November 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 23 April 2024 the Court delivered a judgment (the Judgment) which dismissed the second defendant’s application for orders that specified paragraphs in the plaintiff’s statement of claim be struck out.1

[2] The second defendant filed an application dated 16 May 2024 for leave to appeal the Judgment.

[3] The plaintiff filed notice of opposition to the second defendant’s application for leave to appeal, dated 29 May 2024. The plaintiff’s application was heard on 17 October 2024.

Legal principles

[4] No appeal2 lies from any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in respect of any civil proceeding unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is given by the High Court or by the Court of Appeal following the High Court’s refusal of leave.3

[5] The relevant principles are set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Greendrake v District Court where the Court of Appeal identified the following considerations:4

(a)a high threshold exists;

(b)the applicant must identify an arguable error of law or fact;

(c)the alleged error should be of general or public importance warranting determination or otherwise of sufficient importance to the applicant to outweigh the lack of general or precedential value;

1      Halpin v Darlow [2024] NZHC 894.
2      Except for those appeals provided for under s 56(4) of the Senior Courts Act (the Act).
3      Section 56 of the Act.
4      Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122 at [6].

(d)the circumstances must warrant incurring further delay; and

(e)the ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.

[6] The Court of Appeal in that decision also approved the observations of Fitzgerald J in Finemore Upholstery Ltd v Vaughan to the effect that the requirement for leave was a filtering mechanism to ensure that unmeritorious appeals of no great significance do not unnecessarily delay the proceedings in which the orders had been made.5

Grounds of appeal

[7] Mr Napier, for Mr…

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 Halpin v Darlow

Details

AGLC: Halpin v Darlow [2024] NZHC 3352
Case: [2024] NZHC 3352
Decision Date: 12 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Halpin v Darlow, the court considered an application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application to strike out specific paragraphs in a plaintiff’s statement of claim. The plaintiff, Sally-Anne Halpin, and co-plaintiffs were contesting the grant of probate of a will and codicil, with Richard John Stafford Morris being the second defendant. The central issue was whether the court should grant leave to appeal the judgment which dismissed the second defendant's application to strike out certain paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court identified several legal principles governing the appeal process, particularly the high threshold for granting leave to appeal interlocutory orders. The court considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the relevance and necessity of the pleadings in question. The second defendant argued that the pleadings were irrelevant and unnecessary, while the plaintiffs maintained that they were contextually relevant to the undue influence claim.

The court found that the arguments presented by the second defendant did not meet the high threshold required for leave to appeal. The court held that the pleadings in question were relevant to the undue influence claim and that there were no arguable errors of law or fact in the original judgment. The court also found that the proposed appeal would not serve the interests of justice due to the lack of merit in the grounds for appeal and the potential for unnecessary delay and cost to the plaintiffs.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, reserving costs. The court concluded that the issues raised could be addressed in an appeal against the substantive decision concluding the proceeding.

Orders