Lane v Li

[2024] NZHC 3663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1265

[2024] NZHC 3663

BETWEEN

JAMES TO’ESE LANE

Applicant

AND

XINFENG LI, VINCENT JEFF TAN, JED LANE TAN, TANIA BERNADETTE LANE, ALOMA ELISA LANE and DYLAN

SMITH by his litigation guardian Respondents

Hearing:

11/12 November 2024

Appearances:

T D Bloy & T K Cunningham-Adams for Applicant A M Swan for First and Sixth Respondents

C J C McLean & W H Prior for Second Respondent

Judgment:

6 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Table of Contents

The people involved in these proceedings................................................................... 7

Capacity..................................................................................................................... 28
The making of the will............................................................................................... 32
Significance of the notes............................................................................................ 51
Comparison between the 4 April notes and the 8 April will...................................... 58
The involvement of Paul Young................................................................................. 75

The will...................................................................................................................... 97
Medical evidence re capacity................................................................................... 129
Legal test for capacity.............................................................................................. 177

Analysis.................................................................................................................... 183

Conclusions on capacity.......................................................................................... 200

Undue influence....................................................................................................... 202

Outcome................................................................................................................... 238

Costs......................................................................................................................... 239

LANE v LI & Ors [2024] NZHC 3663 [6 December 2024]

[1]                 Frank John Lane (Frank) died on 6 May 2023. He was two days short of his 79th birthday when he died. This case is about whether Frank’s will was valid.

[2]                 Frank was not married nor in a de facto relationship when he died. He had six children. In order from eldest to youngest the children are: Tania Bernadette Lane (Tania), Petaia Lane (Petaia), Aloma Elisa Lane (Aloma), James To’Ese Lane (James), Jed Lane Tan (Jed), and Vincent Jeff Tan (Vincent).

[3]                 On 14 December 2010 Frank had made a will. That will appointed Frank’s mother, Zillah Marion Scott (since deceased) as executor. In the event of her death prior to Frank’s death, the will appointed James as the sole executor and trustee. After payment of just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, that will left the residue of the estate in equal shares to five of Frank’s children, leaving out Petaia.

[4]                 On 8 April 2023, some four weeks before his death, Frank made a new will (the 2023 will). That will appointed James his executor and trustee, gave $500,000 to Xinfeng Li (Lily), bequeathed a property at 9 Fourth Avenue, Kingsland to James, a property at 16 New Bond Street, Kingsland to Vincent and directed that the residue be divided equally among Vincent, Jed, Dylan Smith (Dylan) and James. The will made no provision for Tania, Petaia, or Aloma.

[5]                 Because of concerns as to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence in relation to the 2023 will James, as executor, commenced proceedings placing both wills before the Court and seeking a declaration as to which will was valid.

[6]                 The two issues for the Court to determine in this case are whether Frank had testamentary capacity at the time of making the 2023 will and whether he was the subject of undue influence in relation to the making of that will.

The people involved in these proceedings

[7]                 Before turning to discuss the evidence relevant to the issues…