Legal Research
Cases
Lawford v Saint

Lawford v Saint

Case [2021] NZHC 3368 9 December 2021

Testamentary Capacity

Undue Influence

Discovery & Disclosure

Relevance

Proportionality

Wills & Succession

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

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-2020-404-001876

[2021] NZHC 3368

IN THE MATTER of an application for probate in solemn form under Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of JOHN ELLIOTT LAWFORD, of

Auckland, Retired, Deceased

BETWEEN

DENISE JOY BALL, TIMOTHY JOHN LEWIS and ROBERT McDOUGALL FERRIER

Plaintiffs

AND

BELINDA BEVERLEY GWENDOLEN SAINT

First Defendant

Hearing: 1 December 2021

Appearances:

S A Grant for the Plaintiffs

A E McDonald for the First Defendant
D A Chambers QC and I J Beverwijk for the Third Defendant No appearance for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

9 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 December 2021 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
MacDonald Lewis Law, Auckland Paladin Chambers, Auckland Hesketh Henry, Auckland
Akarana Chambers, Auckland Glaister Ennor, Auckland

BALL & ORS v SAINT & ORS [2021] NZHC 3368 [9 December 2021]

AND JACK LEE PORUS and DAVID LUNNY
Second Defendant

AND MYLES CURLING LAWFORD
Third Defendant

Introduction and background

[1] On 27 October 2021 the plaintiffs applied for orders granting them probate in solemn form in respect of a will dated 18 April 2017 that was, on its face, properly executed by John Elliot Lawford (Mr Lawford) (2017 Will). Mr Lawford died on 12 June 2020.

[2] The first defendant (Ms Saint) and Mr Lawford married on 23 January 2010. They remained legally married at the time of Mr Lawford’s death; although by then the third-named plaintiff, Mr Ferrier, in his capacity as Mr Lawford’s attorney, had arranged for an application to be made to dissolve the marriage. That application was on foot but had not been determined when Mr Lawford died.

[3] The first defendant has lodged a caveat against the grant of probate to the plaintiffs in respect of the 2017 Will. She is defending the plaintiff’s claim and has filed a counterclaim. Her most recent pleading is a third amended statement of defence and counterclaim dated 14 October 2021 (3ASOD). The 3ASOD is 315 paragraphs long, but it contains only two affirmative defences and a one-sentence counterclaim. In summary, Ms Saint alleges that:

(a)Mr Lawford lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the 2017 Will;

(b)Mr Ferrier unduly influenced Mr Lawford to make the 2017 Will; and

(c)a will dated 6 November 2013 (2013 Will) is Mr Lawford’s last valid will.

[4] Under the 2013 will the first defendant (together with her adult son Mr Caughey) were to receive Mr Lawford’s valuable property in Mission Bay, Auckland (Mission Bay Property). The first defendant is not a beneficiary under the 2017 Will. Conversely, the 2017 Will provides for Mr Ferrier to receive a valuable painting, but he was not a beneficiary under the 2013 Will.

[5]These matters are set down for a seven-day trial in May 2022.

Other parties

[6]The second defendants are the named executors under the 2013…

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 Lawford v Saint

Details

AGLC: Lawford v Saint [2021] NZHC 3368
Case: [2021] NZHC 3368
Decision Date: 9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawford v Saint [2021] NZHC 3368, the High Court was required to determine the scope of discovery in a case involving a dispute over the validity of a will and the capacity of the deceased to execute it. The case centred on a will dated 18 April 2017 executed by John Elliot Lawford, who died on 12 June 2020. Belinda Saint, the first defendant, lodged a caveat against the grant of probate and filed a counterclaim alleging that Lawford lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced when he executed the 2017 will. The court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiffs should provide particular discovery of additional categories of documents beyond those initially ordered.

The court began by outlining the well-established principles of discovery, emphasizing that discovery must be relevant, necessary, and proportionate to the issues in the case. The plaintiffs had already provided extensive discovery, and the court noted the importance of avoiding duplicative or marginally relevant discovery. The first defendant sought to discover a wide range of documents, alleging that the plaintiffs and others had conspired to provide false evidence and that Mr Ferrier unduly influenced Lawford.

After evaluating the relevance and proportionality of the requested documents, the court dismissed most of the first defendant's application for particular discovery. The court found that many of the sought documents were either already covered by the existing discovery orders or were of marginal relevance. For example, the court rejected requests for extensive communications between various parties, noting that they were either irrelevant or already captured by other discovery categories. The court also dismissed requests for documents related to the sale of certain properties and other peripheral matters.

However, the court did order the plaintiffs to provide discovery of any visitor's book used to record visits to Lawford's residence. The court found that if such a book existed, it should be discovered, and if it did not, the plaintiffs should explain why in their affidavit of documents. The court also ordered that the first defendant file an amended statement of defence and counterclaim by a specified date, ensuring compliance with the High Court Rules and general rules of pleading.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the majority of the first defendant's application for particular discovery, emphasizing the need for relevance and proportionality in discovery orders. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to provide certain additional discovery and directed the first defendant to file an amended pleading. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established discovery principles while allowing for necessary and proportionate discovery to facilitate the fair resolution of the case.

Orders