Public Trust v Watene - [2025] NZHC 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV 2023-470-157

[2025] NZHC 314

IN THE MATTER OF The Estate of Teiri Poporo Woodhouse

BETWEEN

PUBLIC TRUST

Applicant

AND

MARION ANAMARIA WATENE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 February 2025

Appearances:

M Freeman and G Cairns for the applicant M Sharp for the respondent

Judgment:

26 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 February 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt Holland Beckett, Tauranga

PUBLIC TRUST v WATENE [2025] NZHC 314 [26 February 2025]

[1] Public Trust is the executor of the estate of Teiri Woodhouse.1 The only asset of the estate is a property at 677 Welcome Bay Road, Tauranga. Marion Watene is the administrator of the estate of Te Aohuakirangi (Dolly) Woodhouse, Teiri’s mother. She asserts that Dolly’s estate has a constructive trust claim in relation to the property. She has lodged a caveat on the title to the property. Despite first notifying Public Trust of the claim around 14 years ago, Mrs Watene has not brought legal proceedings to establish it.

[2] Public Trust has served a notice on Mrs Watene under s 135 of the Trusts Act 2019. Under the section, if proceedings are not commenced within 90 days of the service of a notice, the Court may make an order barring a claim and authorising the trustee to administer the trust property without regard. Mrs Watene did not bring a claim within the 90-day period. Public Trust now seeks an order under s 135.

Transfer of the property by Dolly to Teiri

[3] Dolly transferred the property to Teiri in 2003. The transfer document states that the consideration for the transaction was $1. I explain more about the transfer when I discuss below the nature of the claim by Dolly’s estate.

Deaths of Teiri and Dolly

[4] Teiri died in 2007. He made his last will on 30 January 1980. In it he left his residual estate to his wife Heather Woodhouse, who survives him. Public Trust is named as executor under the will and was granted probate on 29 March 2010.

[5] Dolly died intestate in 2009. On 5 October 2016 Mrs Watene was appointed as administrator of her estate. Dolly’s family are the beneficiaries of her estate under the rules of intestacy.

1 Where surnames are common, to avoid confusion and meaning no disrespect, I use first names.

Notice of the claim

[6] On 2 March 2011 Public Trust received a letter from solicitors notifying them that Dolly’s estate intended to file a claim against Teiri’s estate. The claim was not particularised but was said to be in respect of the property.

Attempts at resolution

[7] In the period between 2012 and 2016 discussions took place between Public Trust and Dolly and Teiri’s family to see whether a resolution could be reached. A…

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 Watene

Details

AGLC: Public Trust v Watene [2025] NZHC 314
Case: [2025] NZHC 314
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court involved Public Trust, as executor of the estate of Teiri Woodhouse, and Marion Watene, who was the administrator of the estate of Teiri's mother, Dolly Woodhouse. The dispute centred around a property at 677 Welcome Bay Road, Tauranga, which Dolly had transferred to Teiri in 2003. Marion Watene lodged a caveat on the property asserting that Dolly's estate had a constructive trust claim over it, which she intended to pursue. Despite first notifying Public Trust of the claim around 14 years prior, Marion Watene had not commenced legal proceedings to establish it. Public Trust, having served a notice under s 135 of the Trusts Act 2019, sought an order barring the claim and authorising the administration of Teiri's estate without regard to it.

The court was required to decide whether Public Trust could rely on the s 135 notice to bar the claim by Dolly's estate, given the significant delay in bringing the proceedings. It also needed to determine if Marion Watene had effectively commenced legal proceedings by detailing the nature of the claim in affidavits filed in opposition to Public Trust's application.

The court found that Public Trust was not barred from relying on s 135 due to waiver by estoppel. Despite Public Trust's attempts to resolve the matter, it had made it clear that it was continuing to rely on the s 135 notice. The court also rejected the argument that Marion Watene had commenced legal proceedings by referring to the claim in affidavits. The court concluded that the delay in bringing the claim was so extreme that the claim must be barred. It granted Public Trust's application to bar the claim, authorised it to administer Teiri's estate without regard to the claim, and ordered the removal of the caveat. Marion Watene was ordered to pay costs to Public Trust.

Orders