Lawler v Khan

[2021] NZHC 2959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-001483

[2021] NZHC 2959

UNDER

the Administration Act 1969

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for order directing the administrator to release estate asset to beneficiary

BETWEEN

SHAZLEEN ZOYA LAWLER
Applicant

AND

HAROON KHAN

Respondent

Hearing:

3 November 2021

Counsel:

P Puckree for Applicant

No appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:

JCP Legal Ltd, Auckland.

LAWLER v KHAN [2021] NZHC 2959 [3 November 2021]

[1]    Shazneen Khan died 3 April 2016.  Mrs  Khan  did  not  have  a  will.  Haroon Khan, her husband, was appointed administrator.

[2]    On 29 March 2017, Mrs Khan’s estate was distributed in accordance with s 77 of the Administration Act 1969. Mrs Khan’s daughter, Shazleen Lawler, was then a minor. So, her share of her mother’s estate was held by Mr Khan, as administrator, in trust.

[3]    On 18 November 2019, Ms Lawler turned 20. On 9 February 2021, she wrote (through her lawyer) to Mr Khan, seeking release of her share of the estate ($195,947.97). Mr Khan did not respond.

[4]    On 21 July 2021, Ms Lawler filed an application in this Court seeking an order requiring Mr Khan to transfer Ms Lawler’s share of the estate to her. The application, an affidavit of Ms Lawler, and other papers have been served on Mr Khan. An affidavit of service has been filed.

[5]    Mr Khan has done nothing. He did not appear when the application was first called 12 August 2021, or today.

[6]I am satisfied the application should be granted. I grant it.

[7]    Mr Khan has failed to do what he ought to have done. The dereliction is very serious. I award Ms Lawler indemnity costs.

[8]    On behalf of Ms Lawler, Ms Puckree suggested I make an order declaring  Mr Khan personally liable. She did so because she is understandably worried the money might have gone. I said I was not prepared to do that because the application does not seek that order and it is not yet known what the position is. I add the obvious: if it transpires Mr Khan has taken the money, this Court will address that wrong on an application by Ms Lawler.

……………………………..

Downs J