Robinson v Beaman - [2023] NZCA 468

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA651/2022
[2023] NZCA 468

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 DIANNE BEAMAN Second Respondents

Hearing:	28 August 2023
Court:	Courtney, Whata and Downs JJ
Counsel:	E J H Morrison and J Y Leenoh for Appellant E Telle for First Respondents A R Gilchrist and G K Ericson for Second Respondents
Judgment:	27 September 2023 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adduce further evidence is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CThe appellant must pay costs to the respondents for a standard appeal on a band A basis, with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Downs J)

Introduction

Glenn Beaman died on 27 November 2020 from complications arising from attempted suicide. Natalie Robinson, Mr Beaman’s partner, applied to the High Court under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 to validate a 2020 email, or alternatively, a 2019 draft will, as Mr Beaman’s will. Woolford J declined the application as he was not satisfied Mr Beaman’s testamentary intentions were settled in relation to either document.[1] Ms Robinson appeals. As in the High Court, Mr Beaman’s brothers, Shane and Jarrod Beaman, and his two children from an earlier marriage, Fynn and Ava, oppose the application.
[1]Robinson v Beaman [2022] NZHC 2822.
An appeal of this nature is a general appeal, but Ms Robinson must persuade us of error or to a different conclusion from that reached by the High Court.[2]

Background

[2]Marshall v Singleton [2020] NZCA 450, [2020] NZFLR 556 at [48].

Mr Beaman and Ms Robinson’s relationship began in or about 2013. Mr Beaman had two children from an earlier marriage, Fynn, aged 10 years, and Ava, aged seven years.
On 21 January 2014, Mr Beaman made his last valid will, which we call the 2014 will. The 2014 will was prepared by Dominion Law. Under the 2014 will:
(a)Mr Beaman’s brothers, Shane and Jarrod Beaman, were executors.
(b)10 percent of Mr Beaman’s estate went to Shane Beaman, should he survive him.
(c)10 percent of Mr Beaman’s estate went to Jarrod Beaman, should he survive him.
(d)The balance of Mr Beaman’s estate went to his surviving children who had reached the age of 20 years, and if more than one, in equal shares as tenants in common.
Mr Beaman then had two children with Ms Robinson: Tiah, born 19 January 2018; and Jentah, born 2 August 2019. Tiah has Down syndrome and other difficulties.
On 9 April 2019, Mr Beaman emailed a different law firm, Kemp Solicitors, about a new will. Mr Beaman said:
Hi – I’d like to update my Will and as I work in the CBD (although live in Waimauku) is there a means of liaising with you by email to update my Will? I am keen to draft/complete it myself and just…

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 [2023] NZCA 468
Case: [2023] NZCA 468
Decision Date: 27 September 2023 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson v Beaman involved a dispute over the validity of two documents, a 2020 email and a 2019 draft will, as testamentary instruments of the deceased, Glenn Beaman. Natalie Robinson, Beaman's partner, sought to have these documents validated under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007. The High Court had dismissed the application, finding that Beaman's testamentary intentions were not settled in relation to either document. Robinson appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the High Court was correct in its assessment of Beaman's testamentary intentions and whether either the 2020 email or the 2019 draft will should be validated as Beaman's will. The court had to consider the nature and clarity of Beaman's testamentary intentions, as well as the relevance of various events and circumstances leading up to his death.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. It found that the 2020 email, which Beaman described as "a start" and where he sought advice from Robinson, did not clearly express his settled testamentary intentions. The court also noted that Beaman had not sent this email to his solicitors, Kemp Solicitors, with whom he had been in communication about his will. Furthermore, the court observed significant differences in outcomes between the 2020 email and the 2019 draft will, suggesting a fluidity in Beaman's testamentary intentions. The further evidence submitted by Robinson did not alter the court's conclusion.

As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision not to validate either the 2020 email or the 2019 draft will as Beaman's will. Robinson was ordered to pay costs to the respondents for a standard appeal on a band A basis, with usual disbursements.

Orders