Newman-Watt v Cruickshank - [2025] NZHC 2398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-600

[2025] NZHC 2398

UNDER the Administration Act 1969 and the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of Arthur John Mead and an application for grant of probate in solemn form

BETWEEN

VIANNEY LOUISE NEWMAN-WATT

Plaintiff/Applicant

AND

MURRAY LESLIE CRUICKSHANK

Defendant/Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2025

Appearances:

T J Rainey for Plaintiff/Applicant

No appearance for Defendant/Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] In this proceeding, the plaintiff/applicant (Ms Newman-Watt) seeks to resolve for which of two potential wills for the late Arthur John Mead the Court should grant probate:

(a)a will dated 19 December 1990 with a codicil dated 9 February 2004 (the 1990 Will), under which Ms Newman-Watts is the executor; or

(b)a will dated 27 May 2019 (the 2019 Will).

NEWMAN-WATT v CRUICKSHANK [2025] NZHC 2398 [22 August 2025]

[2] Ms Newman-Watt applies for a grant of probate in solemn form for the 1990 Will.

[3] The proceeding has been served on the defendant/respondent (Mr Cruickshank). Mr Cruickshank, who drafted the 2019 Will and was appointed under it as the sole executor, has confirmed that he does not intend to take any step in the proceeding. He has also renounced his appointment as executor. As a result, no one is defending the validity of the 2019 Will.

[4] The proceeding has also been served on other parties in accordance with the Court’s directions. Those parties are certain family members of Mr Mead living in the United Kingdom and also the Public Trust (to which Mr Mead granted an enduring power of attorney in relation to property). Neither the family parties nor the Public Trust have taken any step in the proceeding.

[5] Ms Newman-Watt has filed an affidavit in support of the application for grant of probate, attaching relevant documents including certain correspondence. Other affidavits have also been filed confirming service of the proceeding, and communications with Mr Cruickshank (although I note there is no affidavit from Mr Cruickshank).

[6] The determination of this matter has proceeded by way of a formal proof hearing under r 15.9 of the High Court Rules 2016 given that judgment by default is sought for other than a liquidated demand.

Background

[7] Mr Mead was born in Birmingham, in the United Kingdom, on 24 April 1928. He was one of 10 siblings. Of his 10 siblings, Mr Mead was survived by one sister, with whom he remained in touch until his death. Mr Mead emigrated to New Zealand and spent the latter 60 years of his life in New Zealand. Insofar as is known, Mr Mead did not marry, and he had no children.

[8] Mr Mead died at the Waimarie Private Hospital in Auckland on 19 August 2023. The causes of death were recorded to be deconditioning years, Alzheimer’s

dementia and advanced age years. Mr Mead had been in care for several years prior to his death.

[9]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newman-Watt v Cruickshank and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2398
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newman-Watt v Cruickshank involved Vianne Newman-Watt, the applicant, seeking a grant of probate in solemn form for the 1990 will of Arthur John Mead. The defendant, Murray Leslie Cruickshank, who was appointed as the executor under a 2019 will, did not contest the application. The case was heard by McQueen J in the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry. The central issue was which of the two wills, the 1990 will or the 2019 will, should be granted probate. The 1990 will appointed Newman-Watt as executor, while the 2019 will appointed Cruickshank and provided for the distribution of the estate to charities, although it did not specify which charities. The court found that the 2019 will was invalid because it did not properly dispose of the residuary estate, which created an intestacy. The court did not need to consider whether Mead lacked testamentary capacity to execute the 2019 will as the will was already found to be invalid.

The court granted the application for a grant of probate in solemn form for the 1990 will. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid out of Mead's estate. The decision was based on the fact that the 2019 will was not a valid will as it did not properly dispose of the residuary estate. The 1990 will, on the other hand, met all the formal requirements of the Wills Act and appointed Newman-Watt as executor. Therefore, the court found that the appropriate outcome was to grant solemn probate of the 1990 will.

Orders