UNDER the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY

BETWEEN

BRETT LEONARD HARVEY

Plaintiff

AND

PAUL MARTIN HARVEY and CLARK

ROLAND HARVEY as executors of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY
Defendants

…/cont

Hearing: 26-30 July 2021 and 4 August 2021

Appearances:

DRI Gay for Brett Harvey

SWM Piggin for Delwyn Sinclair P J Stevenson for Margaret Harvey

K A Badcock and LAL Badcock for Bryce Harvey

Judgment:

14 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 September 2021 at 4 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:Allen Needham & Co Ltd, Morrinsville Le Pine & Co, Taupo
Badcock Law, Rotorua
Carson Fox Bradley, Auckland B Knowles, Auckland

Counsel:DRI Gay, Auckland SWM Piggin, Auckland P J Stevenson, Auckland

HARVEY v HARVEY [2021] NZHC 2405 [14 September 2021]

A MacMillan, Albany

CIV-2019-419-21

UNDER the Family Protection Act 1955

IN THEMATTER OF the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY

BETWEEN BRYCE CHARLES HARVEY
Plaintiff

AND PAUL MARTIN HARVEY and CLARK
ROLAND HARVEY as executors of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY
Defendants

CIV-2019-419-68

IN THEMATTER OF the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY

BETWEEN DELWYN MARGARET SINCLAIR
First Plaintiff

ANDDELWYN MARGARET SINCLAIR and MARGARET CHRISTINE HARVEY as
trustees of the Maraetai Trust Second Plaintiffs

AND PAUL MARTIN HARVEY and CLARK
ROLAND HARVEY as executors of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY
Defendants

CIV-2019-419-82

IN THEMATTER OF the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY

BETWEEN PAUL MARTIN HARVEY
Plaintiff (DISCONTINUED)

AND PAUL MARTIN HARVEY and CLARK
ROLAND HARVEY as executors of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY
Defendants

…/cont

CIV-2020-419-158

UNDERthe Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and the Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY

BETWEEN MARGARET CHRISTINE HARVEY
Applicant

AND PAUL MARTIN HARVEY and CLARK
ROWLAND HARVEY as executors of the estate of MARTIN LEONARD HARVEY
Respondents

CONTENTS

Introduction  [1]
The claims  [4]
Background  [14]

The nine wills – a general overview [23]

Will 9 [28]

Proposed resolution [32]

Order of consideration of claims [35]
Brett’s claims [38]

Breach of contract (Brett) [39]

Did Mr Harvey agree to forgive the debt in his will?  [50]
Is the term that the debt be forgiven contradictory of and incompatible with
the terms of the written agreement?  [70]
Section 24 of the Property Law Act 2007  [77]
Conclusion on breach of contract claim and relief  [82]

Estoppel (Brett) [89]

Representation causing belief or expectation [92]
Did Brett reasonably rely on his belief or expectation? [94]

Detriment [96]

Unconscionability [106]
Conclusion on estoppel claim [107]

Relief [108]

Testamentary Promises Act (Brett) [112]

Conclusion [121]
Delwyn’s claims [122]

Breach of Contract (Delwyn) [131]

Did Mr Harvey agree to forgive the debt in his will? [134]
Is the term that the debt be forgiven contradictory of and incompatible with
the terms of…

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 Harvey v Harvey

Details

AGLC: Harvey v Harvey [2021] NZHC 2405
Case: [2021] NZHC 2405
Decision Date: 14 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, the case of Harvey v Harvey was heard and decided by Gordon J. The case involved multiple claims related to the estate of Martin Leonard Harvey, who tragically died in a farming accident in 2016. The plaintiffs, including Brett Leonard Harvey, Paul Martin Harvey, Clark Roland Harvey, Delwyn Margaret Sinclair, and Margaret Christine Harvey, brought claims against the executors of Martin's estate regarding the distribution of his assets and debts. The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of wills, contractual agreements, and statutory claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, and the Family Protection Act 1955.

The court found in favor of Brett and Delwyn on their claims that their respective debts should be forgiven as per the oral agreements with their father. The court also granted Mrs Harvey's claims under the Property (Relationships) Act, finding various properties and assets to be relationship property. Furthermore, the court ruled that Mrs Harvey was entitled to a lump sum of $100,000 under the Family Protection Act for breach of moral duty by the deceased. The claims under the Family Protection Act by Brett, Delwyn, and Bryce were dismissed. Costs were reserved, and the court directed the parties to attempt to agree on costs before further proceedings on the issue.

Orders