O'Neill v Slieker - [2022] NZHC 358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2021-412-109

[2022] NZHC 358

UNDER the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

the Estate of ANNE NEWMAN SLIEKER

BETWEEN

JOSEPH GERARD O’NEILL AND PAUL STAFFORD O’NEILL

Applicants

AND

VERITY BABETTE SLIEKER AND HANNAH SLIEKER BERGE

Respondents

Hearing: 2 February 2022

Appearances:

J Stringer for Applicants

No appearance by or for Respondents

Judgment:

4 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Ms Anne Slieker (Ms Slieker) died on 15 February 2019. She had one daughter, Verity Slieker (Verity), and one granddaughter, being the child of Verity, Hannah Berge (Hannah), to whom Ms Slieker sought to leave her relatively modest residuary estate.1 All three women resided in Queensland, Australia.

[2] Joseph and Paul O’Neill (the solicitors), are members of a law firm based in Dunedin that has acted for Ms Slieker since at least 1980. Both solicitors were appointed as the executors and trustees of Ms Slieker’s estate in successive wills that Ms Slieker has made over the years, the last of which she purported to execute on

1 As at 21 April 2021 the current net assets of the estate are valued to be $99,910.79.

O’NEILL v SLIEKER [2022] NZHC 358 [4 March 2022]

8 July 2015. Difficulties have emerged regarding that document which has resulted in the solicitors applying to have the 2015 document validated under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act).

Background

[3] Ms Slieker made a will in 2009 which dispersed her residuary estate in the following way:

(c)1. 80% to my daughter Verity Babette Slieker.

2.15% to Aid for the Blind (QLD) Inc, 9/10 Cameron Street (PO Box 6152), Fairfield, Queensland 4103, Australia.

3.5% to my daughter Hannah Slieker Berge.

[4] In May 2015, Ms Slieker prepared a homemade will that changed the disposition of her estate:

After my death any financial assets remaining in my two (2) Westpac Australia and three (3) Westpac New Zealand Bank accounts when all debts, dues and fees have been settled, I wish to be divided between Verity B. Sleiker and Hannah S. Berge.

Sixty (60) per cent to Verity B. Slieker of 6/20 Wickham Street, Newmarket 4051 as at the date of this document and Forty (40) per cent to Hannah S. Berge, who’s address can be provided by her father Mr D. Berge via email
danny.berge@gmail,com when requested by the firm of O’Neill and Devereux.

[5] Ms Slieker forwarded what she described in an accompanying letter as “the very latest edition of my ‘Will and Testament’” to her solicitors and requested they confirm receipt of the document.

[6] When the solicitors received this homemade will they noted a number of problems with the document. It did not name an executor and had been incorrectly witnessed. They wrote back to Ms Slieker pointing out these deficiencies and requesting she contact them to discuss completing a will that would meet her needs and satisfy the necessary legal…

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 O'Neill v Slieker 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: [2022] NZHC 358
Decision Date: 4 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Neill v Slieker, involves the validation of a will executed by Anne Slieker, who died on 15 February 2019. The applicants, Joseph Gerard O'Neill and Paul Stafford O'Neill, are the executors and trustees of Ms Slieker's estate. They seek to validate a 2015 will which distributes the estate between Ms Slieker's daughter, Verity Slieker, and granddaughter, Hannah Berge. The respondents, Verity and Hannah Slieker, have not appeared or opposed the application. The main legal issue before the court was whether the 2015 will should be validated under section 14 of the Wills Act 2007, despite it not meeting the formal requirements of a valid will. The court considered whether the 2015 will accurately reflected Ms Slieker's testamentary intentions and whether there was any doubt as to her understanding of the document's content. The court found that the 2015 will did indeed express Ms Slieker's testamentary intentions and accurately reflected her intended division and disposition of her estate at the time of her death. The court was satisfied that Ms Slieker's visual impairment did not affect her understanding of the will or her knowledge of its content. Consequently, the court ordered that the 2015 will be validated as Ms Slieker's valid will. Costs on the application are directed to be paid by the estate.

Orders