Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Taylor

Harris v Taylor

Case [2016] NZHC 483 22 March 2016

Jurisdiction

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Standing

Res Judicata

Admissibility of Evidence

Wills & Succession

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-00120 [2016] NZHC 483

IN THE MATTER
of an application pursuant to section 14 of

the Wills Act 2007 declaring a Will to be valid

AND IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of the late LEONARD DEREK TAYLOR

BETWEEN

ANNE LOUISE HARRIS Applicant

AND

LEONARD CHARLES TAYLOR First Respondent

AND

ANNE LOUISE HARRIS Second Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

J M Moran for Applicant
T W Sage for First Respondent
J S Fairclough for Second Respondent

Judgment:

22 March 2016

JUDGMENT No. 2 OF DAVIDSON J (costs)

Introduction

[1] Judgment validating a document as the last Will of Leonard Derek Taylor was delivered on 14 December 2015, reserving leave to address costs.1 This costs judgment addresses the applications for costs by children of the deceased who
adopted contested positions in the litigation.

1 Harris v Taylor, Re Taylor [2015] NZHC 3190.

HARRIS v TAYLOR & ANOR [2016] NZHC 483 [22 March 2016]

Anne Harris’ application for costs against Leonard Taylor

[2] The testator’s daughter, Ms Harris, in her capacity as a beneficiary seeks an award of costs against her brother, Mr Leonard Taylor Jr (‘Mr Taylor’), because she says she was required to engage counsel to represent her, given his opposition to the application for validation of a document as a Will. She is the principal beneficiary under the Will.

[3] In her capacity as executor and trustee in the Estate, Ms Harris does not seek an award of costs. The proper and helpful representation by Mr Moran for the Estate becomes a cost indirectly but properly borne by her as a beneficiary.

[4] She says through counsel that Mr Taylor should have consented to or not opposed validation, so the application could have been dealt with on the papers. This can be answered immediately. Evidential findings and detailed submissions were needed to reach judgment.

[5] In particular, Ms Harris seeks a costs order against Mr Taylor to abate her own costs because she says his evidence was not accepted. Her application is for costs on a Scale 2B basis of $12,488 plus disbursements of $110, a total of $12,598. Solicitor/client costs were $15,716.50 (GST exclusive), and an uplift of Scale costs to $15,000 plus GST (inferentially) is sought. That uplift is said to be warranted because she has been “doubly penalised” as a beneficiary in the Estate through necessary representation of the executor and trustee, and because there were adverse evidential findings made against Mr Taylor.

[6] Mr Sage for Mr Taylor resists Ms Harris’ application that Mr Taylor should pay or contribute to Ms Harris’ costs, and after adjustment to reflect an amendment to Schedule 2 of the High Court Rules on 1 July 2015, her claim is reassessed at
$11,744. Mr Sage submits that these costs should come from the Estate and that Ms Harris needed to be separately represented because of her inherent conflict of interest in advancing the draft Will for validation.…

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 Harris v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Harris v Taylor [2016] NZHC 483
Case: [2016] NZHC 483
Decision Date: 22 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a case involving an application to validate a document as the last Will of Leonard Derek Taylor. Anne Louise Harris, the daughter of the deceased and the principal beneficiary under the Will, sought an award of costs against her brother, Leonard Charles Taylor, who opposed the application for validation. The case turned on the question of whether Mr Taylor should be required to contribute to Ms Harris' costs, given his opposition to the validation of the Will.

The legal issues before the Court included the principles governing costs in probate proceedings and the extent to which costs should be awarded against a party who opposes the validation of a Will. The Court considered various precedents, including cases where costs were ordered to be paid out of the estate and cases where costs were awarded against the party opposing the Will. The Court also examined the discretion it has in awarding costs to achieve justice between the parties.

The Court found that, while Mr Taylor's opposition to the validation of the Will was warranted, his conduct in the proceedings was not. The Court held that Mr Taylor's evidence was not credible and that his motivations were not protective of his father as he asserted, but rather for his own benefit. Given the circumstances, the Court decided that costs should lie where they fall and made no order for costs against the Estate. The Court emphasised that each party faced evidential scrutiny and that the costs should be borne by the parties who contributed to the proceedings, rather than the Estate.

Orders