Legal Research
Cases
Partridge v Partridge

Partridge v Partridge

Case [2024] NZHC 702 28 March 2024

Unconscionable Conduct

Compensatory Damages

Administrative Law

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-141

[2024] NZHC 702

UNDER Section 21 of the Administration Act 1969, s 112 of the Trusts Act 2019 and pt 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

HARRIET LOUISE ANN PARTRIDGE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL PARTRIDGE and NICHOLAS JOHN PARTRIDGE

Plaintiffs

AND

UTE PARTRIDGE as executor of the

Estate of the late Fraser Charles Partridge Defendant

Hearing: 21 February 2024

Appearances:

V Bruton KC and A McDonald for Plaintiffs

S Barker and M Garlick for the Defendant (as executor)
G M Richards for the Defendant (in her personal capacity)

Judgment:

28 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[1] This proceeding CIV-2023-485-141 and proceeding CIV-2022-485-774 relate to the estate of the late Fraser Charles Partridge and are currently being managed together.1

[2]Before me are applications:

(a)by the defendant (as executor) for consolidation of this proceeding (being an application under the Administration Act 1969 for the

1 Partridge v Partridge, HC Wellington CIV-2023-485-141, 12 June 2023 (Minute of Ellis J).

PARTRIDGE v PARTRIDGE [2024] NZHC 702 [28 March 2024]

removal of the executor) (AA proceeding) with CIV-2022-485-774 (being an application by the plaintiffs against the defendant under the Family Protection Act 1955) (FPA proceeding);

(b)by the plaintiffs for leave to apply for summary judgment in the AA proceeding;

(c)by the defendant (as executor) in the FPA and AA proceedings for an order that the Court decide a preliminary question prior to any trial of the other issues in the proceedings.

[3] In the course of the hearing, the parties conferred and agreed to adjourn the application for consolidation pending the outcome of the application for leave to apply for summary judgment. This was on the basis that if the application for consolidation is ultimately required to be heard, then it will be heard by VMR before me. The reason for adjournment of the application for consolidation is that a proceeding may not be consolidated while a summary judgment application in the proceeding remains alive.2

[4] In this judgment, I deal with the plaintiffs’ application for leave to apply for summary judgment and the defendant’s application (as executor) for an order that a preliminary question be determined prior to trial of any other issues.

[5] I have concluded that leave should be granted to the plaintiffs to apply for summary judgment, and that the defendant’s application for an order for determination of a preliminary question should be dismissed.

Background

[6] The plaintiffs are the children of the deceased, Fraser Partridge (Fraser), from his first marriage, which ended in 2008. They are aged respectively, 32, 30 and 29 years old. The plaintiffs all live overseas.

2 East Quip Ltd (in liq) v Galvanising HB Ltd [2013] NZHC 1503 at [30].

[7] The defendant, Ute Partridge, is Fraser’s widow, having married him in 2011. There is one child from the marriage; aged 8.

[8] Fraser died on 21 October 2021, aged 58. He left two testamentary…

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 Partridge v Partridge

Details

AGLC: Partridge v Partridge [2024] NZHC 702
Case: [2024] NZHC 702
Decision Date: 28 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Partridge v Partridge involves applications before the High Court of New Zealand by the children of Fraser Partridge, who passed away in 2021, against his widow, Ute Partridge, as executor of his estate. The plaintiffs, Harriet, Timothy, and Nicholas Partridge, seek to remove Ute as executor, alleging conflicts of interest and improper administration of the estate. The applications under the Administration Act 1969 and the Family Protection Act 1955 are interconnected and managed together. The court is required to decide on two main issues: whether to grant the plaintiffs leave to apply for summary judgment in the Administration Act proceeding, and whether to order the determination of a preliminary question in the Family Protection Act proceeding.

The court grants leave to the plaintiffs to apply for summary judgment, finding that the delay in filing is satisfactorily explained, the merits of the case are strong, and there is no significant risk of miscarriage of justice. The plaintiffs' claims are considered meritorious, particularly in light of the significant estate, the plaintiffs' strained relationship with the defendant, and Fraser's limited provision for them in his will. The court dismisses the defendant's application for a preliminary question, noting that such a determination does not fully address the complex construction issues raised and does not resolve the core conflict of interest between the defendant's role as executor and her personal interests.

The court orders that the plaintiffs are granted leave to apply for summary judgment and that the defendant's application for a preliminary question is dismissed. The plaintiffs are also entitled to costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements, subject to any objections by the parties. The matter is set for further directions regarding the hearing of the plaintiffs' summary judgment application.

Orders