Jackson v Coll - [2021] NZHC 1768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2020-476-000028

[2021] NZHC 1768

UNDER the Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of GORDON HENRY STOCKER

BETWEEN

LISA JANE JACKSON

Plaintiff

AND

VALERIE JUNE COLL and TIMOTHY

JOHN JACKSON as executors of the Estate of GORDON HENRY STOCKER

Defendants

Hearing: 5 July 2021

Appearances:

P R Allan and J E Rapana for Plaintiff N A Hornsey for Defendants

Judgment:

14 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 July 2021 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: 14 July 2021

JACKSON v COLL [2021] NZHC 1768 [14 July 2021]

[1] This is an interlocutory application by the plaintiff seeking an order setting aside the defendants’ claim to confidentiality in respect to documents listed in the defendants’ affidavit of documents. The application is made pursuant to r 8.25 High Court Rules 2016. The defendants oppose the application.

Background

[2] The plaintiff is the daughter of Gordon Henry Stocker who died at Pleasant Point, South Canterbury on 1 May 2019 leaving a last will dated 17 April 2019. The defendants are the executors and trustees of the estate, having been granted probate on 1 November 2019.

[3] The plaintiff brings this claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 seeking further provision for her proper maintenance and support from her father’s estate.

[4] The defendant, Valerie Coll (Ms Coll), was Mr Stocker’s de facto partner. Under the will:

(a)Ms Coll is to receive:

(i)all of Mr Stocker’s furniture and other articles of household and personal use or ornament;

(ii)the use, occupation and benefit of Mr Stocker’s half share in their home at Pleasant Point; and

(iii)the income from and the benefit, enjoyment and occupation of the residue of the estate during her life-time.

(b)On Ms Coll’s death, the plaintiff is to receive a half share of Mr Stocker’s interest in the house and residue; and

(c)The plaintiff’s three siblings will receive the remaining share of Mr Stocker’s interest in the house and residue.

[5] The defendants have filed an appearance reserving rights stating they neither support nor oppose the plaintiff’s claim. However, Ms Coll has filed a substantive affidavit stating that she believes Mr Stocker met his moral obligations to the plaintiff.

[6] At a case management conference on 17 March 2021 directions were made for standard discovery. It was agreed that such discovery was to include:

(d)copies of Ms Coll’s and Point Shingle’s bank statements evidencing the payments that have been met in relation to the estate and the amounts that have been repaid from the sale of the estate’s assets;

…

(h) Point Shingle’s financial statements and annual reports for the years ending 2014 – 2021.

[7] Point Shingle Supplies Ltd is a company in which Mr Stocker owned shares. The shares are a major asset of the estate.

[8] The defendants filed an…

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 Jackson v Coll

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Coll [2021] NZHC 1768
Case: [2021] NZHC 1768
Decision Date: 14 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry, heard an interlocutory application in the matter of the estate of Gordon Henry Stocker, deceased. Lisa Jane Jackson, the daughter of the deceased, sought to set aside the defendants' claim to confidentiality in respect to certain documents listed in the defendants' affidavit of documents. The defendants, Valerie June Coll and Timothy John Jackson, as executors and trustees of the estate, opposed the application. The plaintiff sought further provision for her proper maintenance and support from her father's estate under the Family Protection Act 1955.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the defendants' claims to confidentiality were justified and whether the defendants should be entitled to be indemnified for their costs from the estate. The court considered the principles of disclosure and confidentiality in litigation and the right of trustees to be indemnified for their costs.

The court found that the defendants' claims to confidentiality were not justified. The court held that the documents in question were relevant to the issues in the case, and there was no evidential basis for the assertion that disclosure would cause harm to the company or the individual. The court noted that the appointment of an independent accountant to audit the financial transactions of the estate and value the shares in Point Shingle Supplies Ltd did not advance the defendants' position. The court found the defendants' position to be unreasonable and wholly unacceptable, particularly as one of them is a practising lawyer. The court set aside the defendants' claims to confidentiality and ordered that the documents be produced for the plaintiff's inspection.

Regarding costs, the court found that the defendants should not be entitled to an indemnity from the estate for the plaintiff's costs or their own costs of the application. The court held that the defendants acted unreasonably and improperly in claiming and maintaining confidentiality and that it would be unfair to allow them to be indemnified from the estate for their unreasonableness. The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the proceeding on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. The defendants were not entitled to indemnity from the estate for either the plaintiff's costs or their own legal costs and disbursements on this application.

Orders