Public Trust v Baker - [2025] NZHC 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000027 [2025] NZHC 661

UNDER Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of an application to validate a Draft Will of the late WILLIAM THOMAS BAKER

BETWEEN

PUBLIC TRUST

Applicant

AND

THOMAS TUI BAKER

First Respondent

LILLIAN KATIKA RANGIWHEREA

Second Respondent

REX IAN BAKER

Third Respondent

NATALIE ROSE BAKER

Fourth Respondent

GEORGIA MAY BAKER

Fifth Respondent

Hearing: 26 March 2025

Appearances:

G M Cairns for Applicant (by VMR)

Judgment:

26 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 March 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt

PUBLIC TRUST v THOMAS TUI BAKER [2025] NZHC 661 [26 March 2025]

[1] William Thomas Baker (Mr Baker) died on 28 May 2024. Mr Baker left three children and two grandchildren who were beneficiaries under a will dated 23 February 2021. The will also appointed Public Trust as executor and trustee.

[2] Mr Baker’s children are Thomas Tui Baker, Lillian Katika Rangiwherea and Rex Ian Baker. The two grandchildren named in his will were Natalie Rose Baker and Georgia May Baker. On 14 May 2024, Mr Baker provided updated will instructions to Lavenia Mudunaivalu, a trustee employed by Public Trust. Mr Baker met with Ms Mudunaivalu to discuss his instructions and confirmed that he wanted to make changes to his will to change the shares the residuary beneficiaries were to receive and to change the provision for his grandchildren.

[3] Ms Mudunaivalu prepared a new will for Mr Baker in accordance with those instructions (with one omission). Unfortunately, before Mr Baker could execute the new will, he suffered a stroke on 19 May 2024.

[4] Although Mr Baker was assessed the day before seeing Ms Mudunaivalu as competent to make a will, when Public Trust attended Mr Baker after he sustained the stroke on 19 May 2024, they were unable to effectively communicate with him. He died on 28 May 2024.

[5] After discussion with Mr Cairns, he confirmed Public Trust now seeks to validate two documents as Mr Baker’s will under the provisions of the Wills Act 2007.

[6] Under Mr Baker’s first will his eldest son, Thomas, received 70 per cent of his estate. His daughter Lillian received 20 per cent, and his son Rex five per cent. His two grandchildren Natalie and Georgia received between them five per cent.

[7] The interested beneficiaries from the first will have all been served with the proceedings and have confirmed they consent to the current application, including the effective validation of the two documents.

[8] It is necessary for Public Trust to seek to validate two documents as the draft will prepared by Ms Mudunaivalu omitted to include a provision which Mr Baker had

set out in his initial handwritten instructions he discussed with Ms Mudunaivalu on 14 May 2024.…

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 v Baker

Details

AGLC: Public Trust v Baker [2025] NZHC 661
Case: [2025] NZHC 661
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether two documents could be recognised as the last will of William Thomas Baker. The will was meant to show how Mr Baker's estate should be distributed after his death. Mr Baker's children and grandchildren agreed that these two documents should be accepted as his last will. The two documents were a draft will prepared by a Public Trust employee, Lavenia Mudunaivalu, and a handwritten note made by Mr Baker himself. The court had to determine whether these documents truly reflected Mr Baker's wishes for his estate. The main issue was whether the two documents together could be considered as Mr Baker's will, even though they were not executed or witnessed properly.

The court examined the content of the two documents and the circumstances under which they were created. It found that the documents did appear to be a will and that they did not comply with the formal requirements for a will under the Wills Act 2007. However, the court considered the evidence provided by Ms Mudunaivalu about Mr Baker's intentions and the reasons for the changes he wanted to make to his will. Ms Mudunaivalu testified that Mr Baker had clearly communicated his wishes to her and that these wishes were not capricious but based on the care and assistance provided by his children. The court concluded that validating the two documents as Mr Baker's last will would be in the interests of justice, especially given the consent of all the interested beneficiaries.

The court ordered that the two documents marked A and B in Ms Mudunaivalu's affidavit be recognised as Mr Baker's last will. Additionally, the court granted probate in common form over the will, allowing Public Trust, who were named as executors and trustees in the will, to proceed with administering the estate. The court decided that the costs of the application should be paid out of Mr Baker's estate.

Orders