Public Trust v Lawrence - [2022] NZHC 558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2021-409-135

[2022] NZHC 558

IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Bernard Wallace Lawrence

BETWEEN

PUBLIC TRUST

Applicant

AND

MICHAEL BERNARD LAWRENCE

First Respondent

AND

ANTONY PAUL LAWRENCE

Second Respondent

AND

HELEN ANNE CAMERON

Third Respondent

Hearing: 1 March 2022

Appearances:

Appearance excused for Applicant

K W Clay for First and Second Respondents by VMR
L M McKeown and A A Sawant for Third Respondent by VMR

Judgment:

24 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 March 2022 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RE: ESTATE OF LAWRENCE [2022] NZHC 558 [24 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] The hearing of this application is the culmination of a long running dispute between the children of the late Bernard Lawrence over the administration of their father’s estate. At issue is:

(a)which of his last two wills should be admitted to probate; and

(b)who should be appointed to administer the estate?

[2] Sadly, despite intermittent attempts by one side or the other to reach agreement, they have been unable to co-ordinate their offers to settle. Their dispute must now be resolved in the public forum of the Court.

Background

[3] Mr Lawrence and his wife Betty had three children; Michael, Antony (Tony), and Helen (now Helen Cameron).1 Tony and Michael live in Christchurch, and Helen lives in Sydney, Australia.

[4] Mr and Mrs Lawrence’s health declined in their last years and they made the decision to move into a unit in an aged care facility, Ilam Lifecare, and sell the family home. In mid-2014, an enduring power of attorney (EPOA) held by Tony and Michael was activated due to concerns about Mr Lawrence’s physical and mental decline. Mrs Lawrence died on 2 July 2017 and Mr Lawrence died on 23 August 2019.

[5] Both Mr and Mrs Lawrence had made wills in 2013. Mrs Lawrence’s will named her husband as the executor of her estate, but with the three children named as substitute executors in the event that Mr Lawrence was unable or unwilling to act. Mr Lawrence’s will, made on 11 October 2013 (the 2013 Will), left his estate, after payment of debts, funeral expenses, taxes and duties, to his three children in equal shares. It also named all three children as executors and trustees of the will.

1 I will refer to the parties by their first names to avoid any confusion given the commonality of surname for all family members but Helen.

[6] Shortly before Mrs Lawrence died, circumstances arose which appear to have been a particular trigger for the animosity which now exists between Helen and her two brothers, Michael and Tony. They also are said to have been a trigger for the preparation of a subsequent will by Mr Lawrence on 26 March 2018 (the 2018 Will).

[7]In Helen’s first affidavit, she refers to those circumstances…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Public Trust v Lawrence [2022] NZHC 558
Case: [2022] NZHC 558
Decision Date: 24 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Public Trust v Lawrence involved a dispute between the siblings of the deceased, Bernard Wallace Lawrence, over the administration of his estate. The primary issues were which of his last two wills should be admitted to probate and who should be appointed to administer the estate. The 2013 Will left his estate to his three children in equal shares and named all three children as executors and trustees of the will. The 2018 Will left his estate to his three children in equal shares but named the partners of Bishopdale Law as executors, with a wish that Richard Sprott act on the estate. The Court held that the 2013 Will should be admitted to probate and that the Public Trust should be appointed as executor of the 2013 Will. The Court found that there was no evidence to establish that Mr Lawrence had testamentary capacity at the time of making the 2018 Will. The Court also found that the Public Trust was an expedient choice as executor, despite Helen's concerns about their actions to date. The Court noted that any delay caused by the Public Trust was minimal when compared with the delay caused by the inability of the parties to compromise and the consequent need to hear these proceedings. The Court also found that the Public Trust's costs were not excessive and that there was no foundation to Helen's concern about the fees the Public Trust was charging. The Court further found that the Public Trust would be impartial and that there was no sufficient reason to appoint a different executor when there were other factors which clearly made it expedient for the Public Trust to continue in the role of administering the estate.

Orders