King v Vundhiler

[2025] NZHC 2173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002780 [2025] NZHC 2173

UNDERthe Administration Act 1956 and Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER             of the Estate of PAUL ADRIAN BURROW BETWEEN  ALICIA MAREE KING

Plaintiff

AND  IRINA VUNDHILER

Defendant

Hearing:                   4 August 2025

Counsel:                   C D Braybrook for Plaintiff

No appearance by or on behalf of Defendant

Judgment:                4 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2025 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Totara Law (Auckland) for Plaintiff

KING v VUNDHILER [2025] NZHC 2173 [4 August 2025]

Introduction

[1]    This Judgment decides an application by Ms A M King to replace the defendant as the administrator of Ms King’s late father’s estate. The application proceeded by way of formal proof.

[2]    The deceased, Mr Burrow, died intestate on 25 January 2022. The defendant, Mr Burrow’s partner, was granted letters of administration on 1 December 2022.

[3]    The affidavits filed by Ms King give evidence that the defendant got in the assets of the estate some time ago. But, despite repeated requests, she has not produced accounts. The defendant has also refused requests by Ms King to be reimbursed from the estate for payments she made towards the cost of Mr Burrow’s funeral and to satisfy (what Ms King says was) an obligation to repair a motor vehicle.

[4]    Initially, the application by Ms King was made in a form which was not compliant with the High Court Rules 2016 (an interlocutory application). But, the defendant, on her own behalf, filed an “affidavit” in opposition to the application. The document was not an affidavit, but merely a witnessed statement.

[5]No steps were taken by the defendant in the present proceeding.1

[6]    At the plaintiff’s request, I will have regard to the defendant’s document as a statement made by the defendant.

[7]    My statutory jurisdiction is s 21 of the Administration Act 1969. It is a broad jurisdiction. On the material before me, I am satisfied:

(a)the defendant should by now have prepared accounts showing her administration of the estate;

1      There is an affidavit of service.

(b)the defendant’s failure or refusal to prepare accounts more than two-and-a-half years after she became administrator is in breach of her duty; and

(c)there is evident hostility between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[8]    The defendant’s statement filed in the original proceeding leads me to infer that the defendant regards the proceeds of the estate as belonging to her.

[9]    I am satisfied that the requirement that Mr Burrow’s estate be properly administered makes it expedient for me to remove the defendant as administrator and replace  her  with  an  independent  administrator.   The  plaintiff  has   nominated Ms Emma Tonkin, a lawyer and a partner in Hesketh Henry. I accept the nomination.2

Decision

[10]   The application is granted. The defendant, Ms Irina Vundhiler, is removed as administrator of the estate of the late Paul Adrian Burrow with effect from the date of this Judgment.

[11]   I appoint Ms Emma Louise Tonkin as administrator of the estate with effect from the date of this Judgment.

[12]   The plaintiff is entitled to costs. They are sought on a 2B basis and set out in a schedule to counsel’s submissions. I approve them. The plaintiff is to have costs of

$11,113.50 and disbursements of $3,978.  These are to be paid  from the assets of  Mr Burrow’s estate.

Brewer J

2      At the hearing, I told counsel I would require written consent from Ms Tonkin before appointing her. That was provided on 4 August 2025.