Hill v Waddingham - [2019] NZHC 3505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2017-425-92

[2019] NZHC 3505

UNDER the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Administration Act 1969

IN THE MATTER OF

the Estate of Neville Morton

BETWEEN

EMILY ISABELLA MARGARET HILL

Plaintiff

AND

HOLLY VICTORIA WADDINGHAM AND ROSS DOUGLAS JACKSON

First Defendants

AND

KERRY PHILLIP MORTON

Second Defendant

Hearing: 30 October 2019

Appearances:

R T Chapman and A Stevens for Plaintiff

No appearance by or for the First Defendants (Excused) G L Wilkin and M Fisher for Second Defendant

Judgment:

24 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 December 2019 at 10.15 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

HILL v WADDINGHAM [2019] NZHC 3505 [24 December 2019]

[1] Neville Morton (Neville) farmed a property at Titiroa in Southland. The plaintiff, Emily Hill (Emily), met Neville in 1980. They developed a friendship that continued for some 36 years until Neville’s death. A feature of their long relationship was that Emily would travel from her home in Invercargill and work with Neville on his farm.

[2] Three years before his death, Neville told Emily that “there would be something in [his will] for her”. Neville left a $100,000 legacy for Emily from his estate that has since been valued at between $5.7 and $6.4 million.1

[3] Emily claims that the $100,000 does not reasonably recompense or remunerate her for the work and services she provided to Neville. She seeks an award under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (the Act) for an additional $400,000 on the basis that this would be a reasonable amount to satisfy Neville’s testamentary promise that would otherwise remain unmet.2

Background

[4]It is necessary to set out the factual background in some detail.

Neville Morton

[5] Neville farmed the property at Titiroa for most of his working life. In 1979 his wife of some 18 years left him. Neville and his wife had three children. The youngest son is Kerry Morton (Kerry), the second defendant, who, apart from the $100,000 legacy to Emily, is the sole beneficiary of Neville’s estate. Neville’s elder son died shortly before the separation, aged 15 years. Neville also had a daughter who had Down Syndrome. Both the wife and daughter predeceased Neville.

[6] Kerry left the farm with his mother in 1979 when he was 12. Thereafter he had very little contact with his father and they were effectively estranged until shortly before Neville’s death. The first time Kerry went back to the farm to see his father was to introduce him to his grandson who was about three years old at the time. The

1 The net value of the total estate is between $5,792,264 and $6,469,264.
2 Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, s 3.

meeting did not go well. Over the following years Kerry would see Neville about every 12 months or so, but his father was…

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 Hill v Waddingham

Details

AGLC: Hill v Waddingham [2019] NZHC 3505
Case: [2019] NZHC 3505
Decision Date: 24 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hill v Waddingham, the High Court of New Zealand awarded Emily Hill $350,000 from the estate of Neville Morton to satisfy his unfulfilled testamentary promise. Hill had worked with Morton on his farm for 34 years and had a close platonic relationship with him. Morton left Hill $100,000 in his will, which she deemed inadequate compensation. The court agreed, finding that Hill's work and services went beyond normal friendship and companionship, especially given the long duration and her dedication to maintaining a rural lifestyle. Hill's assistance in running the farm and providing care for Morton in his later years significantly contributed to his well-being. The court rejected Morton's son's argument that reciprocal benefits and the modest bequest adequately compensated Hill. Considering the size of the estate, the court concluded that the additional $350,000, along with the existing $100,000, provided reasonable recompense for Hill's contributions.

Orders