Legal Research
Cases
Phillips v Crawford

Phillips v Crawford

Case [2017] NZHC 1478 30 June 2017

Will Construction

Life Tenancy

Uncertainty of Objects

Disposition of Property

Certainty Requirement

Wills & Succession

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2016-488-138 [2017] NZHC 1478

UNDER the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

the estate of KRUZO PHILLIPS

BETWEEN

DORIS PHILLIPS Plaintiff

AND

JOHN ERNEST CRAWFORD First Defendant

PHILIP SAMPSON WELLS Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 June 2017

Appearances:

A J Steele for the Defendants
D J Blaikie and T L Luders for the Plaintiff

Judgment:

30 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 June 2017 at 11:30am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Douglas J Blaikie, Kaikohe, for the Plaintiff
Martelli McKegg (A J Steele), Auckland, for the Defendants

PHILLIPS v CRAWFORD [2017] NZHC 1478 [30 June 2017]

[1] This case concerns the distribution of the estate of the late Kruzo Phillips who died on 22 August 2009 in his 70th year. He survived his parents. He did not marry. Although he had been in a de facto relationship, that came to an end in the
1980s. He had no children. He had one sibling, John Yukich, who died on 25 July

2015.1

[2] Mrs Phillips, the plaintiff, is the administrator of John Yukich’s estate. She claims in Kruzo’s estate as the next-of-kin who would take under an intestacy under the Administration Act 1969. The defendants are the executors of Kruzo’s will dated 24 April 1995, for which probate was granted on 28 September 2009. The significant asset of the estate is Kruzo’s 184 hectare farm called “Onoke” on the estuary of the Whirinaki River in the south Hokianga. Kruzo was however no farmer. John Crawford, one of the defendants, managed the farm for Kruzo. Other farmers used Onoke for grazing, a Mrs Leigh and later Mr Stan Morley. In 1998
Mr Morley made an agreement with Kruzo under which he grazed cattle on the farm. That grazing arrangement has apparently continued until now.

[3] The relevant parts of Kruzo’s will of 24 April 1995 say:

3. I GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH all the real property and chattels thereon comprising my farm situated in Opononi comprised and described within certificates of title 501/258 and 2D/364, North Auckland Land Registry or the estate or interest therein which I may possess at my decease (hereafter called “the property”) to my trustees UPON TRUST that my trustees shall permit the said JOHN CRAWFORD to use, occupy and enjoy the property, its improvements, chattels, equipment, machinery, live and dead stock, crops and produce, without impeachment of waste and all profits therefrom during his life time for so long as he shall elect he managing, farming and maintaining the property as he has done during my life time and paying all outgoings in connection therewith provided that and I EXPRESS THE WISH without creating a binding trust thereby that the property shall be kept in one unit and not subdivided or otherwise affected during the continuation of the said interest.

4. After the termination of such interest…

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 Phillips v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Phillips v Crawford [2017] NZHC 1478
Case: [2017] NZHC 1478
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns the interpretation and validity of the will of the deceased, Kruzo Phillips, and the distribution of his estate. The plaintiff, Mrs Phillips, is the administrator of John Yukich’s estate, and she claims in Kruzo’s estate as the next-of-kin under the intestacy provisions. The defendants are the executors of Kruzo’s will, which appointed John Crawford as the life tenant of the farm. The legal issues in the case include whether John Crawford’s life tenancy has been determined and whether clauses 4 and 5 of the will are valid. The court found that John Crawford’s life tenancy had not been determined, as the grazing arrangement with Mr Morley did not constitute exclusive possession and the property was still being farmed. However, clauses 4 and 5 of the will were found to be invalid for uncertainty of objects, as they did not specify a class of beneficiaries or limit the disposition to charitable purposes. The court dismissed the application for summary judgment, as the plaintiff had an arguable case that clauses 4 and 5 were invalid. The court ordered that the plaintiff could continue only that part of her claim directed against clauses 4 and 5 of the will and directed a telephone case management conference to discuss further steps and costs.

Orders