O'Sullivan v Taylor-Stevens

[2022] NZHC 451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2021-485-353

[2022] NZHC 451

IN THE ESTATE OF

Denis John Lashlie of Wellington, New Zealand, Property Developer (Deceased)

BETWEEN

MEGAN MARY O’SULLIVAN

Applicant

AND

URSULA MARGARET MARY

MADELINE SOPHIE TAYLOR-STEVENS

Respondent

Teleconference:

11 March 2022

Counsel:

M Freeman for Applicant

J C LaHatte for Respondent

Judgment:

11 March 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                  This matter is set down for a two-day fixture before me on 29 and 30 March 2022 in the Wellington High Court. The hearing is to be by electronic means.

[2]                  This matter started as an originating application by the applicant for letters of administration in relation to the estate of Denis John Lashlie (the deceased). The applicant and respondent both claim to be the surviving de facto spouse of the deceased.

[3]                  There are two principal issues for determination in the substantive proceedings. Firstly, who is the appropriate person to administer the estate; and secondly, who is the deceased’s surviving de facto spouse.

O’SULLIVAN v TAYLOR-STEVENS [2022] NZHC 451 [11 March 2022]

[4]                  Both counsel have filed memoranda dated 4 March 2020. Mr LaHatte, for the respondent, sought an urgent teleconference in his memorandum. The teleconference proceeded today, Friday 11 March 2022.

[5]                  Mr LaHatte raised a concern that the two days allocated for the hearing would be inadequate. He noted the number of deponents in respect of whom notices of cross- examination have been served and his concern was that the hearing might end up part- heard. He also raised concerns in relation to the suitability of proceedings commenced by way of originating application in the High Court for the resolution of a factual issue such as the identity of the de facto spouse of the deceased.

[6]                  During the course of the teleconference hearing, Mr Freeman, for the applicant, indicated that his client was amenable to the prospect of an independent person being appointed to administer the estate. That is, a person who is independent of both the applicant and the respondent. The name of Greg Kelly, a local solicitor very experienced in these matters, was mentioned. The Court regards Mr Kelly as someone entirely suitable for the role.

[7]                  By way of response, when Mr LaHatte understood that Mr Freeman’s client was amenable to the appointment of an administrator as being someone in the nature of Mr Kelly, he confirmed that this would significantly narrow the issues required to be considered by the Court at the proposed hearing and, accordingly shorten the duration. He then indicated that on that basis, there did not appear to be any need to either abandon the hearing or attempt to obtain further time. On that basis, the Court confirms that the hearing scheduled for 29 and 30 March 2022 will proceed.

[8]                  By way of final comment, I would hope that the parties, prior to the commencement of the hearing, can discuss the formal basis for the appointment of Greg Kelly as the independent administrator of the estate, and should the parties reach agreement prior to the commencement of the hearing, I would encourage them to file a joint memorandum.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for Applicant

cc:        J C LaHatte, Barrister, Wellington for Respondent