Samways v Reid

[2020] NZHC 2270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2020-412-059

[2020] NZHC 2270

UNDER

the Family Protection Act 1955

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of JOHN GOLDSWORTHY

BETWEEN

JULIE ANN SAMWAYS (nee GOLDSWORTHY), LORRAINE ANN GOLDSWORTHY, PETER JOHN GOLDSWORTHY, TINA ANN BASTIN (formerly GRANT GOLDSWORTHY), DEBRA ANN GOLDSWORTHY and NEIL JOHN GOLDSWORTHY

Plaintiffs

AND

MARGARET JOAN REID and ADRIAN JAMES REID

Defendants

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	M J Robinson and F Iqbal for Plaintiffs
Judgment:	2 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 September 2020 at 12.30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 2 September 2020

SAMWAYS v REID [2020] NZHC 2270 [2 September 2020]

[1]    In this proceeding, the six plaintiffs are the surviving children of the late John Goldsworthy (the deceased), who died on 24 May 2019. The deceased was predeceased by the mother of the plaintiffs, Doreen. The deceased was divorced from Doreen in 1980.

[2]    The deceased  married  Dulcie  Goldsworthy  in  2008,  having  commenced  a relationship with her in 1985. Dulcie brought to that relationship three sons, Peter, Dean and Glenn Maxwell.

[3]    The deceased left the residue of his estate to Margaret Reid and Adrian Reid who he also appointed as executors and trustees. The deceased gave a separate gift of the contents of his workshop to Alistair Rutherford, Robert Watson and David Blair.

[4]    The plaintiffs seek directions that the proceedings be served on Margaret  Joan Reid and Adrian James Reid in their capacity as executors and beneficiaries, and such is obviously appropriate. The application seeks an order that they be served by way of their solicitor, Mr Holloway of Downie Stewart. I am not prepared to make such an order. If Margaret Reid and Adrian Reid have agreed to Mr Holloway accepting service then that is sufficient, but in the absence of such an agreement, I am not prepared to make what amounts to an order for substituted service on the basis of the material provided.

[5]    It is appropriate that the recipients of the deceased’s workshop be served. The workshop contents are apparently worth a little over $3,000. Whether the plaintiffs wish to disturb the gift of the workshop contents is a matter for them to consider, but nonetheless it is appropriate that Alistair Rutherford, Robert Watson and David Blair be served.

[6]    As to Dean, Peter and Glenn Maxwell, again it is appropriate that they be served.

[7]    Accordingly, orders are made in terms of paras (a), (b) and (c) of the application dated 24 August 2020, save as regards service on Mr Holloway in relation to Margaret Reid and Adrian Reid.

[8]    The application then refers to “Further Orders or Directions as the Court seeks fit”.

[9]    The statement of claim refers to the applicants’ late sibling, Stuart Goldsworthy who died some years ago and left three children. I am not told whether the other plaintiffs have children.

[10]   It is not clear to me what, if any, directions are sought in respect of the service of grandchildren or their representation. Given the estate is relatively modest, I direct that any children of the named plaintiffs be represented by the plaintiffs who are to inform their children of this proceeding.

[11]   It would be appropriate for Stuart Goldsworthy’s children, Karina Goldsworthy, Matthew Goldsworthy and Craig Goldsworthy to be served, and I so direct.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Turner Hopkins, Auckland