Public Trust - [2025] NZHC 2151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2025-454-37

[2025] NZHC 2151

UNDER Part 19 and Part 27 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an originating application by PUBLIC TRUST, of Wellington, an autonomous

Crown entity established under the Public Trust Act 2001, as executor of the estate of WILLIAM EDWARD STANLEY

ROBINSON, for a grant of probate in solemn form

On the papers:

Counsel:

G M Cairns for Applicant

Judgment:

1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

Introduction

[1] The issue in this proceeding is whether a grant of probate in solemn form should be made in respect of the will of William Edward Stanley Robinson dated 1 December 2006 (the 2006 will).1 In the alternative, Public Trust seeks an order that probate be granted in solemn form in respect of Mr Robinson’s earlier will dated 5 December 2001 (the 2001 will). Probate in solemn form is sought as some uncertainty exists regarding Mr Robinson’s testamentary capacity at the time the 2006 will was executed, when Mr Robinson was diagnosed with dementia two years earlier.

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 27.6.

PUBLIC TRUST [2025] NZHC 2151 [1 August 2025]

[2] On 16 April 2024, leave was granted to commence the proceeding as an originating application.2 The proceedings have been served on all potentially affected parties—being Mr Robinson’s three children, who are the beneficiaries of his will and the Public Trust in its capacity as the executor of Mr Robinson’s wife’s estate. For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied it is appropriate to grant probate of the 2001 will in solemn form.

Background

[3] Mr Robinson executed his last will on 1 December 2006. He died on 31 March 2013 and was survived by his wife, Betty Robinson (Betty) and their three adult children.

[4] The 2006 will appointed Public Trust as the executor of Mr Robinson’s estate. Public Trust elected to administer Mr Robinson’s estate in May 2013.3 At this time, the estate assets and liabilities comprised the following:

(a)a half-share interest in a property at 18 Hereford Street, Levin (the Levin property) owned as tenants in common in equal shares with Betty;

(b)cash reserves of around $12,000; and

(c)estate expenses, including funeral and administration fees.

[5] Public Trust administered Mr Robinson’s estate in accordance with the 2006 will. The net residuary estate of $3434.07 was distributed to Betty. Betty’s life interest in the Levin property expired when she died in July 2024. Betty’s will had appointed Public Trust (in a separate capacity) as executor and trustee, and provided for her estate to be divided equally between the children. As executor of Betty’s estate Public Trust marketed the Levin property for sale and entered into an agreement for its sale and purchase. However, before entering into that agreement Public Trust had, in error, revoked its election to administer. To enable the sale and settlement of the Levin

2 Public Trust [2025]…

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 Public Trust

Details

AGLC: Public Trust [2025] NZHC 2151
Case: [2025] NZHC 2151
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the Public Trust, acting as the executor of the estate of William Edward Stanley Robinson, sought a grant of probate in solemn form for Mr Robinson's will dated 1 December 2006, or alternatively for his will dated 5 December 2001. The application arose due to uncertainties regarding Mr Robinson's testamentary capacity at the time he executed the 2006 will, particularly as he had been diagnosed with dementia two years prior to its execution. The central legal issues were whether Mr Robinson had testamentary capacity when he executed the 2006 will and, if not, whether the 2001 will should be admitted to probate instead.

The court considered the legal framework for granting probate in solemn form, noting that such a grant requires the court to be satisfied that the testator had the requisite mental capacity at the time the will was executed. The court examined the medical evidence from October 2006, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment but normal executive function, and the lack of evidence regarding Mr Robinson's understanding of the will's contents and effects at the time of execution. The court concluded that, in the absence of positive evidence, it could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Robinson had the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the 2006 will. Therefore, the court decided to grant probate in solemn form for the 2001 will, as it was executed when no issues regarding capacity arose.

The court made a grant of probate in solemn form of the will dated 5 December 2001. This decision was based on the uncontested dispositions in both wills and the lack of opposition from beneficiaries, ensuring that the outcome would not cause any injustice. The court's decision was grounded in the absence of evidence confirming Mr Robinson's testamentary capacity at the time the 2006 will was executed, leading to the conclusion that the 2001 will should be admitted to probate.

Orders