Tata v Abrams - [2022] NZHC 1554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-404-1850

[2022] NZHC 1554

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016 and the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of Violet Aotearoa Te Waipounamu Tata

BETWEEN

REGINALD RAURETI TATA

Plaintiff

AND

DONNA DOREEN MATEKINO ABRAMS

Defendant

Hearing: 16 March 2022

Appearances:

S E Wroe for Plaintiff

C Smith for Defendant in her Personal Capacity
D Horton for Defendant in her capacity as administator of estate

Judgment:

1 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2022 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Mac & Co, Auckland
Rhonda Evans, Avondale Turner Hopkins, Auckland S Wroe, Auckland
A R Gilchrist, Auckland C G Smith, Auckland

TATA v ABRAMS [2022] NZHC 1554 [1 July 2022]

[1] This matter concerns the estate of the late Ms Violet Aotearoa Te Waiponamu Tata (Ms Tata). Mr Tata, the plaintiff, and Ms Abrams, the defendant, are siblings and children of Ms Tata. They are both beneficiaries of the estate. Ms Abrams is the sole administrator and trustee.

[2]Mr Tata makes an interlocutory application1 to the Court for orders that:

(a)Ms Abrams, be removed as administrator and trustee of Ms Tata’s estate;

(b)Mr Tata be appointed as administrator and trustee of Ms Tata’s estate; and

(c)Costs relating to this application be payable by Ms Abrams from her share of the estate.

Background

[3] By will dated 30 September 2005 Ms Tata appointed two of her daughters as administrators: being Ms Abrams and Judy Kaka. Ms Tata died on 19 March 2008. Probate was granted to Ms Kaka and Ms Abrams on 24 April 2008. Ms Abrams and Ms Kaka were jointly responsible for managing the estate from their mother’s death in 2008 until 2016 when Ms Kaka died. Since 2016, Ms Abrams has been the sole administrator.

[4] The estate’s only asset is a residential property at 41 Golf Road, New Lynn (the Golf Road property).

[5] In her will Ms Tata left her disabled son Tony Tata a life interest the Golf Road property. He died in August 2019. Later in August 2019 there was a meeting of whānau to discuss what should happen to the property. Some wanted it sold, others wanted it to stay in the family and provide a home for family members in need. For a

1 The application is made in reliance on r 7.19 of the High Court Rules 2016; ss 112 and 119 of the Trusts Act 2019; Nyhoff v Atkins [2021] NZHC 2238; and Taylor (as trustees of the Taylor Family Trust) v Taylor [2021] NZHC 992.

time one of Ms Tata’s granddaughters occupied the property and there is a dispute over whether she should have paid rent or not.

[6] In September 2019 Ms Abrams and Mr Tata met with real estate agents who advised…

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 Tata v Abrams

Details

AGLC: Tata v Abrams [2022] NZHC 1554
Case: [2022] NZHC 1554
Decision Date: 1 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tata v Abrams involved a dispute over the administration of the estate of Violet Aotearoa Te Waiponamu Tata. Reginald Tata, the plaintiff and brother of the deceased, sought to remove Donna Doreen Matekino Abrams, the defendant and sole administrator of the estate, from her position and to be appointed in her place. Abrams was also accused of breaching her fiduciary duties in selling the estate's sole asset, a residential property, to her son Joseph George at an undervalue. The substantive proceeding was yet to be heard. The central legal issue was whether it was expedient to remove Abrams as the administrator of the estate, given the allegations made against her. The court considered the general principles applicable to such applications, including the duty of the court to ensure that estates are properly administered and trusts properly executed, and that the wishes of the testator or settlor are to be given consideration. The court concluded that while Abrams' actions may have been questionable, the matter was heavily fact-dependent and many of the facts were disputed. Therefore, it was not appropriate to remove Abrams at an interlocutory stage. Instead, the court appointed Reginald Tata and Christina Tai as additional administrators and trustees alongside Abrams, to ensure that the estate was properly administered.

In conclusion, the application for an order removing Abrams as administrator and trustee was declined, but Tata and Tai were appointed as additional administrators and trustees of the estate alongside Abrams. The matter of costs was reserved for a later date, either to be determined at the substantive hearing of the proceeding or through the filing of memoranda by the parties.

Orders