Meecham - [2014] NZHC 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-11228 [2014] NZHC 2303

IN THE ESTATE OF HAROLD HORACE MEECHAM of
Rotorua, deceased

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

P M Lines for applicants

Judgment:

22 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1] This is a without notice application made pursuant to s 14 of the Wills Act

2007 to declare a will prepared for the late Mr Meecham shortly before his death to be a valid will, notwithstanding the fact that the will was not signed by Mr Meecham.

[2] Mr Meecham died at Rotorua on or about 24 May 2014. On 21 May 2014

Mr Meecham had signed a written booklet, prepared by Rotorua Law Shop Ltd, containing his instructions for the preparation of a will. Ms Anne Ludgate, a Legal Executive, visited Mr Meecham in hospital the next day. Ms Ludgate has deposed that Mr Meecham was fully aware of his personal assets, the full names of the people he wished to appoint as executors and attorneys, together with the names and addresses of the final beneficiaries of his will. Ms Ludgate has attached to her affidavit a letter from the doctor who was looking after Mr Meecham during the last few days of his life. The doctor sets out his belief, that on 22 May 2014
Mr Meecham had capacity to make decisions regarding his will.

[3] Ms Ludgate further deposes that Mr Meecham was fully aware he was not well, and was thinking of moving into a rest home. Mr Meecham advised her that he

Re Meecham (deceased) [2014] NZHC 2303 [22 September 2014]

had a sister and brother in the United Kingdom, but that his estate was not to be left to them but rather to his nieces, who had supported and assisted him during his time in New Zealand.

[4] Ms Ludgate prepared a will for Mr Meecham, and also Enduring Powers of

Attorney, in accordance with his instructions. She returned at 11.00 am the next day,

23 May 2014, to have him sign those documents. Mr Meecham had, however, taken a turn for the worse overnight and was not well. Mr Meecham’s niece, who had been with him, left the room to enable Ms Ludgate to read through Mr Meecham’s will. Ms Ludgate deposes that Mr Meecham said he wished to sign his will, but physically was unable to do. Ms Ludgate further deposes that she believes Mr Meecham wished to sign his will, that he thoroughly understood the contents of the document but that he was physically too weak to sign it.

[5] Ms Adele Ransley, legal assistant, attended on Mr Meecham with Ms Ludgate. Ms Ransley confirms Ms Ludgate’s affidavit that Mr Meecham was able to say yes or not to questions asked of him and that he said yes to wanting to sign his will, tried to hold the pen to sign it but was physically unable to do so.

[6] Section 14 of the Wills Act provides:

14 High…

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 Meecham

Details

AGLC: Meecham [2014] NZHC 2303
Case: [2014] NZHC 2303
Decision Date: 22 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether a document prepared for the late Harold Horace Meecham could be declared a valid will, despite not being signed by him. The applicant, Mr McNaughton, sought the declaration under section 14 of the Wills Act 2007, which allows the High Court to validate a document that appears to be a will but does not comply with the statutory requirements for execution. Specifically, the document in question was not signed by Mr Meecham. Mr Meecham had signed a booklet containing his instructions for his will on 21 May 2014, and a Legal Executive from Rotorua Law Shop Ltd, Ms Anne Ludgate, prepared a will based on those instructions. On 23 May 2014, Ms Ludgate returned to have Mr Meecham sign the document, but he was physically unable to do so due to his deteriorating health. Ms Ludgate and another legal assistant, Ms Adele Ransley, provided affidavits stating that Mr Meecham had the mental capacity to understand the contents of the will and wished to sign it but was physically unable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the document could be declared a valid will under section 14 of the Wills Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person's testamentary intentions. The court considered the affidavits of Ms Ludgate and Ms Ransley, along with the written instructions from Mr Meecham. Clifford J concluded that the document did indeed express Mr Meecham's testamentary intentions, as evidenced by his clear understanding of the will's contents and his wish to sign it despite being physically unable to do so. The court made an order declaring the document to be a valid will of Mr Meecham, as it was satisfied that it accurately reflected his testamentary intentions.

Orders