Halpin v Darlow - [2024] NZHC 894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-428

[2024] NZHC 894

UNDER Part 27 and Rule 27.34 of the High Court Rules 2016

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 under CIV-2022-485-601231 on 15 July 2022

BETWEEN

SALLY-ANNE HALPIN,

DAVID CHRISTOPHER STAFFORD
MORRIS and
TIMOTHY STAFFORD MORRIS
Plaintiffs

AND

CHRISTOPHER DARLOW and

DAVID ROBERT APPLEBY, as Executors of the Estate of BARBARA MORRIS
First Defendants

RICHARD JOHN STAFFORD MORRIS

Second Defendant

Hearing: 12 March 2024

Appearances:

J P Cundy for the Plaintiffs

P J Napier and K Eastwood for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

23 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application for strike out of parts of plaintiffs’ statement of claim]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 April 2024 at 3:00pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

HALPIN, v DARLOW and [2024] NZHC 894 [23 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] Richard John Stafford Morris (Mr Richard Morris) applies for orders striking out parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

Background

[2] Mrs Barbara Morris (Mrs Morris) died on 11 August 2021. Mrs Morris executed a will dated 9 May 2014 (the 2014 will) and a codicil dated 25 June 2019 (the codicil). A will was also prepared for Mrs Morris on or around May 2018 (the draft 2018 will) which she did not execute. The codicil disproportionately benefited her son, Mr Richard Morris, over her three other adult children (the plaintiffs).

[3] The plaintiffs are seeking orders to set aside probate in respect of both the 2014 will and the codicil and that probate be granted to the draft 2018 will. The plaintiffs rely on three causes of action, being:

(a)undue influence by Mr Richard Morris in respect of the codicil;

(b)lack of Mrs Morris’ testamentary capacity when instructions were given and the codicil was executed; and

(c)validation of the draft 2018 will under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007.

[4] On 22 September 2023, Mr Richard Morris applied to partially strike out the plaintiffs’ claims. In particular, the pleadings Mr Richard Morris seeks to strike out concern:

(a)Mrs Morris’ instructions to her lawyers regarding Mr Richard Morris’ poor treatment of her and his control/influence over her property and finances. 1

1 Amended statement of claim dated 9 August 2023 at [8]– [13].

(b)Mr Richard Morris’ control over Mrs Morris’ property and finances. In particular, his use of Mrs Morris’ name, assets and money to maintain, operate and manage the horticultural business “MTC Perennials”.2

(c)Mr Richard Morris’ alleged misrepresentations to the Family Court,
Inland Revenue and/or other government agencies.3

(d)Mr Richard Morris’ alleged misappropriation of at least $870,341.02 of Mrs Morris’s money.4

[5]The plaintiffs oppose the strike-out application.

Mr Richard Morris’ application for strike-out

[6] Mr Richard Morris seeks orders striking out…

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 894
Case: [2024] NZHC 894
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand in Auckland heard an application by Richard John Stafford Morris to strike out parts of the plaintiffs' statement of claim in the matter concerning the estate of Barbara Morris. The plaintiffs, Sally-Anne Halpin, David Christopher Stafford Morris, and Timothy Stafford Morris, sought orders to set aside probate in respect of the 2014 will and the 2019 codicil, and to grant probate to the draft 2018 will. They relied on claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and validation of the draft 2018 will. Richard Morris sought to strike out specific paragraphs from the amended statement of claim on the grounds that they were likely to cause prejudice and delay, were frivolous and vexatious, or were an abuse of the court's process. The plaintiffs opposed the application, arguing that the pleaded paragraphs were relevant to their claims. The court considered the legal principles governing strike-out applications and assessed whether the paragraphs in question were relevant to the issues at hand. The court found that the paragraphs concerning Mrs Morris' instructions to her lawyers, Mr Richard Morris' control over her property and finances, and his alleged misappropriation of her money were relevant to the plaintiffs' claims of undue influence and testamentary capacity. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Richard Morris' application to strike out parts of the statement of claim. The plaintiffs were awarded costs, with an order for the parties' counsel to endeavour to agree on the costs and, if unsuccessful, to file memoranda for a decision on the papers.

Orders