Legal Research
Cases
Jones v Bassett

Jones v Bassett

Case [2024] NZHC 1655 21 June 2024

Equitable Estoppel

Unconscionable Conduct

Compensatory Damages

Family Protection Act 1955

Testamentary Promise

Intestacy

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-707

[2024] NZHC 1655

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of MARGARET WILMA JONES

BETWEEN

NICOLA ANN JONES

Plaintiff

AND

SAMUEL MICHAEL WILLIAM BASSETT and MASON GRANT WEYMOUTH

LOCKHART as administrators in the estate of MARGARET WILMA JONES

First Defendants

MICHAEL ALEXANDER JONES
Second Defendant

KATHERINE MARY JONES

Third Defendant

Hearing: 22 February 2024

Counsel:

L W Dixon for Plaintiff

Judgment:

21 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 June 2024 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Patterson Hopkins (Auckland) for Plaintiff

JONES v BASSETT & LOCKHART [2024] NZHC 1655 [21 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mrs Margaret Wilma Jones (the deceased) died intestate on 20 September 2018. Her husband (Angus) died 10 months before her, also intestate.

The deceased is survived by her three children:

(a)Nicola Ann Jones, the plaintiff (Nicky);

(b)Michael Alexander Jones, the second defendant (Michael);

(c)Katherine Mary Jones, the third defendant (Katy).

[3] Pursuant to s 77 of the Administration Act 1969, the deceased’s estate is held by the administrators (the first defendants) on trust for Nicky, Michael and Katy equally.

[4] The principal asset of the deceased’s estate is a residential property in Mellons Bay, Auckland (the house).

[5] Nicky claims she is entitled to a one-half share in the house. She sues the defendants with the purpose of obtaining an order from the Court giving effect to her claim.

[6]In her statement of claim, Nicky advances three causes of action:

(a)For relief pursuant to the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA);

(b)For a declaration and order arising from an equitable estoppel; and

(c)A declaration and order pursuant to the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (TPA).

[7] The defendants have not taken any steps. Accordingly, a formal proof hearing took place on 22 February 2024. The onus is on Nicky, for each cause of action relied on, to provide evidence establishing her case.1

[8] As to evidence, I have Nicky’s affidavits sworn on 8 November 2022 and 19 April 2023; and Katy’s affidavit sworn on 24 November 2022.

[9]This Judgment determines Nicky’s claim.

Background

[10]I take the background from Nicky’s 2022 affidavit:

8.I was born in 1970. I went travelling at age 17 and spent much of the 1990s abroad. I enjoyed an exciting and fulfilling life in a range of countries. When I was 17 and 18, I lived in Brazil and travelled around South America. At aged 23-24, I lived in Norway. Between the ages of 25 and 31, I was lived in Japan and travelled around Europe, Asia, South Africa, Jordan and Israel. In around 1995, I settled in Hokkaido, Japan. I formed a life there. I had a wide circle of friends and an active social life. In 2001, I was enrolled in a Master’s degree in anthropology at Hokkaido University,…

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 Jones v Bassett

Details

AGLC: Jones v Bassett [2024] NZHC 1655
Case: [2024] NZHC 1655
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nicola Ann Jones brought a claim against the administrators of her deceased mother's estate, Margaret Wilma Jones, seeking a declaration that she is entitled to a one-half share in a residential property in Mellons Bay, Auckland, and other relief. Nicola's mother died intestate, leaving Nicola, her brother Michael, and her sister Katherine as her heirs. Nicola's claim was based on three causes of action: equitable estoppel, the Family Protection Act 1955, and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. The court examined whether Nicola's mother had represented that Nicola would receive a one-half share in the house, whether Nicola reasonably relied on this representation to her detriment, and whether it would be unconscionable for the deceased to depart from this belief or expectation. The court found that Nicola's mother did make such representations, that Nicola reasonably relied on them, and that it would be unconscionable for her to depart from them. Therefore, the court made a declaration that the administrators hold one-half of the house on trust for Nicola. The court also considered whether the deceased had made inadequate provision for Nicola's proper maintenance and support, but found that the evidence did not support such a conclusion. Finally, the court considered whether Nicola was entitled to relief under the Testamentary Promises Act, but found that there was no causal connection between the promise and the services rendered by Nicola. The court held that Nicola was entitled to reasonable costs, to be paid from the deceased's estate.

Orders