Newton v Dunasemant - [2025] NZHC 2618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-614211

[2025] NZHC 2618

UNDER the Administration Act 1969

IN THE MATTER

of an application in solemn form and Part 27 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE ESTATE

of DOROTHY HELEN NEWTON

BETWEEN

MICHAEL GEORGE NEWTON

Applicant

AND

CHRISTINE ROBIN DUNASEMANT

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

W E Andrews for the Applicant J W Donald for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2025 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms W E Andrews (counsel for the applicant), Barrister, Auckland
Ms C C Endean (applicant’s instructing solicitor), Dawsons Lawyers, Auckland Mr K I Bond and Mr J W Donald, Braun Bond & Lomas Ltd, Hamilton

NEWTON v DUNASEMANT [2025] NZHC 2618 [9 September 2025]

[1] Mrs Dorothy Newton died on 5 August 2022, aged 91. A dispute arose as to whether probate should be granted in respect of her last will dated 16 February 2021, or of her earlier will dated 20 December 2016 on the basis that at the time of her later will she was subject to undue influence and lacked testamentary capacity.

[2]The parties are now agreed that the matter may be resolved on the papers.

Background1

[3] The estate primarily consists of the sale proceeds of a villa at the Bupa Tararu retirement village in Thames. The approximate value of the estate is $338,677.

[4]Mrs Newton had three children:2

(a)Michael, the applicant;

(b)Christine, the respondent; and

(c)Fraser, who has been served with proceedings but has not taken any steps.

[5]On 20 December 2016, Mrs Newton executed a will (2016 will) under which:

(a)Christine was appointed as sole executor and trustee of the estate; and

(b)the residue of Mrs Newton’s estate would be divided equally between her three children.

[6] On 16 February 2021, Mrs Newton made a subsequent will (2021 will) under which:

(a)Christine was appointed as sole executor and trustee of the estate;

1 The background, the claim, the proceedings and the defence were conveniently summarised in the memorandum of counsel for the respondent dated 2 April 2025.
2 I will use first names for the adult children not for informality but for ease of differentiation.

(b)Michael would receive a gift of $20,000;

(c)Fraser would receive a gift of $10,000; and

(d)Christine would receive the residue of Mrs Newton’s estate.

[7] At the time of making the 2021 will, Mrs Newton was living independently in her retirement villa and, although well supported by Christine, largely managed her own day-to-day living.

The claim

[8] Michael alleged that Mrs Newton was unduly influenced and/or lacked capacity at the time she made the 2021 will.

[9] His allegation of undue influence centred around the decision to reduce the extent of the gifts the brothers would receive under the 2021 will.

[10] His…

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 Newton v Dunasemant

Details

AGLC: Newton v Dunasemant [2025] NZHC 2618
Case: [2025] NZHC 2618
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Newton v Dunasemant involved a dispute regarding the validity of Mrs Dorothy Helen Newton's last will dated 16 February 2021, as opposed to her earlier will dated 20 December 2016. Michael George Newton, the applicant, argued that his mother was under undue influence and lacked testamentary capacity when she made the later will. Christine Robin Dunasemant, the respondent, sought to propound the 2021 will. The court was required to decide whether Mrs Newton had the capacity to make the 2021 will and whether she was unduly influenced.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the affidavits of Dr Jane Casey, who opined that Mrs Newton's testamentary capacity was in doubt at the time of the signing of the 2021 will, and Christine and Mr Fitzgerald, who provided evidence that contradicted Dr Casey's opinion. The court also took into account the evidence from Dr M Mikaere and Ms Sarah Harrison, who attested to Mrs Newton's mental acuity at the time of making the 2021 will. The court found that Mrs Newton had the capacity to make the 2021 will and was not subject to undue influence when making it.

In conclusion, the court granted probate of Dorothy Helen Newton's will dated 16 February 2021, declaring that she had testamentary capacity to make a valid will on that date.

Orders