BETWEEN	REBECCA ELIZABETH LANE Appellant
AND	ANNE VERONICA GOLDSON AND BENJAMIN JAMES GOLDSON AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD ALGERNON GIFFORD Respondents

Hearing:	23 July 2024
Court:	Hinton, Mander and Walker JJ
Counsel:	M I S Phillipps for Appellant M L Barnes for Respondents
Judgment:	28 February 2025 at 4.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Factual background	[7]
Procedural history	[25]
High Court judgment	[30]
Submissions on appeal	[36]
Overview of the application	[42]
Was the burden on the executors at the hearing?	[50]
Was s 19 unavailable because the estate was wound up?	[54]
Does the Public Trust have a credible claim for leave under s 88(2) of the PRA	[57]
Should the Public Trust have provided evidence of funding?	[76]
Result	[78]

On 20 September 2023 Downs J dismissed an application by the appellant, Rebecca Lane, under s 19 of the Administration Act 1969 (the Act). She appeals to this Court.
Ms Lane, who may or may not be a biological daughter of Donald Gifford, seeks to enlarge his estate. She applies to have the Public Trust appointed as administrator under s 19 of the Act, and will urge the Public Trust to bring a Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) claim against Mr Gifford’s de facto partner, Anne Goldson. Ms Goldson is one of the executors of the estate, and a respondent in this proceeding.
In particular, Ms Lane wants the Public Trust to claim 50 per cent of the value of a property in St Mary’s Bay (the Property), formerly owned by Mr Gifford but owned by Ms Goldson by the date of his death. A 50 per cent share of the Property has an indicated value range of $1,900,000 to $2,250,000.
The estate is otherwise insolvent. Its debts exceed the modest assets remaining at death, being mainly artwork.
Ms Lane says that once the estate is enlarged, she has an automatic entitlement under ss 77 and 79 of the Act (relating to the succession of intestate estates). This is because any proceeds of a PRA claim would fall into Mr Gifford’s residuary estate, and the residual beneficiary named in Mr Gifford’s will, the Aldebaran Trust, was wound up prior to his death. The residuary estate would therefore be distributed as a partial intestacy under ss 77 and 79.[1] Under a partial intestacy, $155,000 plus interest would be distributed to Ms Goldson as de facto partner, and the balance would be distributed one-third to each of Ms Goldson, Benjamin Goldson and Ms Lane. Mr B Goldson is the son of Ms Goldson and Mr Gifford, and the other executor/respondent in this proceeding.
[1]Re Estate of Mabee [2023] NZHC 2134

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 Lane v Goldson

Details

AGLC: Lane v Goldson [2025] NZCA 36
Case: [2025] NZCA 36
Decision Date: 28 February 2025 at 4.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rebecca Lane appeals against the High Court decision to dismiss her application under s 19 of the Administration Act 1969 to enlarge the estate of Donald Algernon Gifford. She seeks to have the Public Trust appointed as administrator to pursue a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 against Anne Veronica Goldson, Gifford’s de facto partner and an executor of his estate. Lane claims an entitlement to a portion of the proceeds of such a claim. The appeal is dismissed. The High Court judge concluded that section 19 was not an appropriate vehicle to achieve what Lane sought, that the Public Trust would not necessarily receive leave to bring a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act, and that there was no evidence as to how the Public Trust would be funded if appointed. The Court of Appeal found that although section 19 can be used to reopen a closed estate in certain circumstances, the application was correctly dismissed because there was no credible claim against Ms Goldson. Ms Lane had not provided evidence of financial need, breach of moral duty or other special circumstances that would establish serious injustice to her. Additionally, the Court observed that there is no evidence that Ms Goldson is receiving a windfall and that it would be contrary to the testator’s wishes for Ms Lane to receive a sizeable share of the estate by default. The Court also noted that Ms Lane’s claims under the Administration Act and the Family Protection Act would fail if she is not the biological daughter of Mr Gifford.

Orders