Spencer v Hill - [2025] NZHC 1769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2025-419-0108

[2025] NZHC 1769

UNDER Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of an application for orders declaring a document to be a valid codicil

BETWEEN

OENONE LOUISE SPENCER and JACQUELINE LEE SIBBALD

Applicants

AND

SCOTT HILL

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A G Barrett and A Wang for applicants

Date of judgment:

1 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2025 at 4.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Glaister Keegan, Auckland

SPENCER v HILL [2025] NZHC 1769 [1 July 2025]

[1] John Tedcastle died on 4 January 2025. I offer the Court’s condolence to his survivors.

[2] I have Mr Tedcastle’s estate’s executors’ originating application dated 31 March 2025, seeking orders under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007, to declare an evidenced document a valid (second) codicil to Mr Tedcastle’s last will dated 8 December 2022 (revoked in part by a first codicil dated 5 August 2024).

[3] With one exception, Mr Tedcastle’s will predominantly gifted personal chattels, shares and cash to his partner, who also was his estate’s residual beneficiary. The exception is the will also gifted particular equipment, clothing and a sum of money to the respondent. The first codicil reduced that sum.

[4] After a lunch between Mr Tedcastle and the respondent on 18 December 2024, Mr Tedcastle instructed his solicitors on 19 December 2024 to prepare a second codicil with effect to remove any gift to the respondent. Such was prepared and provided to Mr Tedcastle on 20 December 2024 for signature and witnessing (the evidenced document).

[5] The evidenced document was not signed before Mr Tedcastle’s death. Knowing of Mr Tedcastle’s intention for the further revocation, neither his partner nor his solicitors are aware of any reason to think his intention had changed by the time of his death. The respondent acknowledges the effect of the evidenced document if validated and, moreover, consents to such orders.

Validation of wills

[6]Section 14 of the Wills Act 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.

[7]Section 14 applies to the evidenced document here, because it:

(1)is a document in existence;

(2)appears to be a second codicil to Mr Tedcastle’s will, in that it is to be made by him, for disposition of property to which…

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 Spencer v Hill

Details

AGLC: Spencer v Hill [2025] NZHC 1769
Case: [2025] NZHC 1769
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spencer v Hill, the applicants, Oenone Louise Spencer and Jacqueline Lee Sibbald, who are the executors of the deceased, John Tedcastle, sought a declaration from the court that a document was a valid codicil to Mr Tedcastle’s will. The respondent, Scott Hill, did not oppose the application but acknowledged that the document, if validated, would have the effect of revoking a gift made to him in Mr Tedcastle’s will. The High Court of New Zealand was required to decide whether the document in question expressed Mr Tedcastle’s testamentary intentions and whether it could be declared a valid codicil under Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007.

The court considered the evidence provided by the executors’ solicitors, who explained the circumstances surrounding the preparation and intended signing of the document. The document, which was intended to be a second codicil to Mr Tedcastle’s will, aimed to revoke a gift made to the respondent. The court held that the document did express Mr Tedcastle’s testamentary intentions as it was consistent with his will and the first codicil. The court concluded that the document was a valid second codicil because it was satisfactorily proven that it aligned with Mr Tedcastle’s intentions for the disposition of his property.

The High Court declared the document to be the valid second codicil to Mr Tedcastle’s will and first codicil, effectively revoking the gift to the respondent. The court directed that the costs of the application be paid out of the estate.

This decision underscores the importance of the court’s discretion under Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007 in validating documents that do not fully comply with statutory requirements but clearly express the deceased’s testamentary intentions.

Orders