Robinson v Beaman - [2024] NZCA 387

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA727/2023
CA198/2024
[2024] NZCA 387

BETWEEN	NATALIE CHRISTINE ROBINSON Appellant
AND	SHANE MICHAEL BEAMAN AND JARROD JASON BEAMAN First Respondents FYNN BEAMAN AND KIM JANINE MCHARDY as Litigation Guardian for AVA DIANE BEAMAN Second Respondents

Court:	Palmer and Hinton JJ
Counsel:	J S Cooper KC, E J H Morrison and J Leenoh for Appellant E Telle for First Respondents A R Gilchrist for Second Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	16 August 2024 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is granted. The requirement to pay security for costs is revoked.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Palmer J)

On 31 October 2022, Woolford J declined Ms Robinson’s application to have an email validated as a will.[1] He did not consider that the deceased had a settled testamentary intention at the time of the email.[2]
[1]Robinson v Beaman [2022] NZHC 2822 [substantive decision]. An appeal of the substantive decision was dismissed by this Court in Robinson v Beaman [2023] NZCA 468.
[2]At [32].
On 18 July 2023, Woolford J issued an interim costs judgment.[3] He considered costs should follow the event and should be awarded on an actual and reasonable basis, but invited further submissions as to the amount.[4] On 2 November 2023, Woolford J issued a final costs judgment ordering Ms Robinson to pay $134,858.68 to the first respondents and $40,000 plus GST to the second respondents.[5]
[3]Robinson v Beaman [2023] NZHC 1874 [interim costs decision].
[4]At [26], [28] and [31].
[5]Robinson v Beaman [2023] NZHC 3087 [final costs decision] at [24].
On 30 November 2023, Ms Robinson sought to appeal both costs decisions. On 28 March 2024, Goddard J directed that she would need to apply for an extension of time to appeal the interim costs judgment, which she then did on 5 April 2024. This judgment determines that application.
Ms Robinson also applied to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision to require security for costs. However, on 2 July 2024, she advised that she has been granted legal aid. We revoke the requirement to pay security for costs accordingly.[6]

Submissions

[6]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, rr 7(b) and 35(11). Rule 36 does not apply, because Ms Robinson had not applied for legal aid at the time she brought this appeal: see r 36(1).

Counsel for Ms Robinson submits there is significant merit in the issues raised by the proposed appeal, the length of delay was relatively short and was due to an oversight by counsel, the appeal was filed as soon as the final determination of costs was issued, and there is no prejudice to the respondent.
The first respondents oppose the extension on the basis: the period of time is lengthy; the appellant’s oversight in respect of the interim decision should have been corrected by this Court’s security…

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 Robinson v Beaman

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Beaman [2024] NZCA 387
Case: [2024] NZCA 387
Decision Date: 16 August 2024 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natalie Christine Robinson sought to appeal the decision of Woolford J that declined her application to have an email validated as a will and also the costs judgments issued in the proceedings against Shane Michael Beaman and Jarrod Jason Beaman, and Fynn Beaman and Kim Janine McHardy as litigation guardian for Ava Diane Beaman. The Court of Appeal determined the application for an extension of time to appeal and the application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision to require security for costs.

The primary legal issues were whether the extension of time to appeal should be granted and whether the requirement to pay security for costs should be revoked. The Court considered factors such as the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, conduct of the parties, prejudice or hardship to the respondents, and the significance of the issues raised by the proposed appeal. The Court found that the delay was relatively short, the reason for the delay was due to an oversight by counsel, there was no prejudice to the respondents, and the merits of the appeal warranted consideration.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time to appeal the interim costs decision, noting that the merits of the interim costs decision were effectively subsumed by the final costs decision. The Court also granted the application for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision to require security for costs, revoking the requirement as Ms Robinson had been granted legal aid.

The final orders were that the application for an extension of time to appeal was granted and the application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision was granted, with the requirement to pay security for costs revoked.

Orders