Salt
[2025] NZHC 2099
•29 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CIV-2025-425-72
[2025] NZHC 2099
IN THE ESTATE OF JEREMY RAYMOND SALT UNDER
Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007
BETWEEN
DANIEL ROBIN SALT
Applicant
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
S C Nicol and V L Brown for Applicant
Judgment:
29 July 2025
Reissued:
11 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J
This judgment was delivered by me on 29 July 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
RE SALT [2025] NZHC 2099 [29 July 2025]
[1] The applicant, Daniel Robin Salt, is the brother of Jeremy Raymond Salt (the deceased) who died at Queenstown on 19 September 2024.
[2] The applicant seeks to have a Perpetual Guardian wills instruction form dated 18 September 2024 (the Document) declared the valid will of the deceased.1
[3] The circumstances in which the deceased came to prepare the Document is outlined in detail in the affidavit of the applicant dated 9 December 2024.
[4] In brief, the deceased fell ill when he was in Cambodia. A CT scan revealed he had a tumour in the bowel and he was flown back first to Bangkok and then to Invercargill where he was admitted to Southland Hospital. It very quickly transpired that the deceased had terminal bowel cancer and he had to put his affairs in order.
[5] He had completed a document called a memorandum of wishes while hospitalised in Bangkok. That memorandum is also annexed to the applicant’s affidavit, primarily because it evidences a consistency with the deceased’s testamentary wishes as expressed in the Document sought to be validated as a will.
[6] While in Lakeside District Hospital in Queenstown the deceased’s condition deteriorated quickly. At the prompting of the residential social worker, Ms Sheena Lees, he was advised to prepare a formal will. In a meeting at the Lakes District Hospital on 16 September 2024 in the presence of family members and a friend, the deceased confirmed the following testamentary wishes:
(a)the applicant was to administer the deceased’s estate;
(b)his three siblings should receive 15 per cent of his estate divided equally between them;
(c)the residue of his estate was to be held on trust for his son [C] until he reached the age of 26 years.
1 While the application said the document was dated 17 September 2024, it was in fact dated 18 September 2024 and that is consistent with the affidavit evidence.
[7] The applicant then arranged for a representative from Perpetual Guardian to attend the deceased on 18 September 2024. On that date Mr Vaughan Love from that organisation attended the deceased and took his testamentary instructions in the presence of two of the deceased’s siblings.
[8] The applicant explains that the deceased told Mr Love he wanted to keep his will very simple and to mirror his statement of wishes instructions. Mr Love filled out a client questionnaire form with the deceased and in it he recorded details about the deceased’s assets and liabilities and about his family and friends. He also took the deceased’s will instructions which were consistent with the previously prepared statement of wishes, but with the following additions:
(a)the deceased wished the applicant to be the testamentary guardian of [C]; and
(b)the deceased wanted to gift his two motorbikes to the following friends of his:
(i)his 2022 KTM 250 dirt bike to Gabriel Rojo; and
(ii)his 1971 Honda C50 to John Seely.
[9] As the deceased and Mr Love discussed through his testamentary wishes, Mr Love wrote those instructions down in the document entitled “will instructions” dated 18 September 2024. Mr Love read those instructions to the deceased who confirmed it was what he wanted and signed it. This was done in front of Mr Love and two of the deceased’s siblings. Sadly, the deceased passed away in his sleep on the following morning before a formal will could be completed in accordance with those instructions.
[10] It is the Document recording those instructions which is sought to be validated as the last will of the deceased.
Steps taken since the death of the deceased
[11] The applicant has made enquiries for the purposes of the Status of Children Act 1969 as detailed in his affidavit. He confirms that the only surviving child of the deceased was [C]. He also confirms that the deceased was not married and was not survived by a de facto partner entitled to succeed on intestacy.
[12] In a second affidavit sworn on 3 July 2025 the applicant confirms that he contacted Cimberley Chantale Bremer, the mother of the deceased’s son, to advise her that this application would be made. He provided all details of the application to her lawyer to advise her on it. While there was some toing and froing over this, and she sought advice from a second lawyer, in the end she forwarded her signed consent to the application dated 11 June 2025, which has been filed with the application.
Should the application proceed without notice?
[13] The application is made without notice on the grounds that all persons who may be potentially affected by the granting of the order have consented to the application. I accept, as counsel explains in their accompanying memorandum, that
[C] is the only person who might potentially be affected by the granting of the order given his entitlement under s 77 of the Administration Act 1969 if the deceased was found to have died intestate.
[14] [C] is an infant. I accept that service on [C’s] mother, as his only surviving parent was the appropriate course of action and, given she has obtained legal advice and consented to the application, there is no need to take further steps to protect [C’s] interests. Had I been required to make orders directing service, I would have directed service on [C’s] mother as the person most appropriately served in order to represent [C’s] interests.
[15] Having satisfied myself that all affected persons consent to the order being made, and that it is appropriate that it proceed without further notice to any party, I turn now to the substantive application.
The application
[16] The power to validate a document as a will is found in s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act). That section provides:
14 High Court may declare will valid
(1)This section applies to a document that—
(a)appears to be a will; and
(b)does not comply with section 11; and
(c)came into existence in or out of New Zealand.
(2)The High Court may make an order declaring the document valid, if it is satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intentions.
(3)The court may consider—
(a)the document; and
(b)evidence on the signing and witnessing of the document; and
(c)evidence on the deceased person’s testamentary intentions; and
(d)evidence of statements made by the deceased person.
Section 8 of the Act defines what a will is as follows:
8 Meaning of will
(1)Will means a document that—
(a)is made by a natural person; and
(b)does any or all of the following:
(i)disposes of property to which the person is entitled when he or she dies; or
(ii)disposes of property to which the person’s personal representative becomes entitled as personal representative after the person’s death; or
appoints a testamentary guardian.
…
[18] Section 6 of the Act defines a document as “any material on which there is writing”.
[19] I am satisfied the Document was made by the deceased as a natural person and it disposes of the deceased’s property. It was also signed in the presence of the deceased’s two brothers and a representative of Perpetual Guardian, each of whom has provided evidence that the document expressed the deceased’s testamentary intentions. The document also appoints a testamentary guardian.
[20] However, the document does not comply with s 11 of the Act in that it was not signed by any party who witnessed the will being signed by the deceased.
[21] In terms of whether it expresses the deceased’s testamentary wishes, there is clear and compelling evidence that it does. It is consistent with the deceased’s memorandum of wishes prepared in Bangkok and his verbal instructions to his family while hospitalised. It also records more detailed instructions as to the disposition of his assets for the very purpose of preparing a formal will. It was only the deceased’s unexpectedly early death which prevented that further step being taken.
[22] In all the circumstances I am readily satisfied that this is a document in respect of which I should exercise my discretion to declare a valid will of the deceased. Accordingly, I order:
(a)that the document dated 18 September 2024 a certified copy of which is marked “C” and annexed to the affidavit of the applicant dated 9 December 2024 is declared the valid will of the deceased.
Solicitors:
AWS Legal, Invercargill
0
0
1