Thomas v Mathias - [2021] NZHC 461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000174

[2021] NZHC 461

UNDER the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949

IN THE MATTER

of the estate of Hilda Elizabeth Reid

BETWEEN

ANNA ELIZABETH THOMAS

Plaintiff

AND

MAXWELL CHARLES MATHIAS and ANDREW GEORGE WILLIAM LOGAN

Defendants

Hearing: 1 March 2021

Appearances:

A J Forbes QC and P M Smyth for Plaintiff B G Walker for Defendants

Judgment:

11 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 March 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

THOMAS v MATHIAS [2021] NZHC 461 [11 March 2021]

Introduction

[1] The defendants are the executors of the estate of Hilda Reid (Ms Reid). Ms Reid died leaving a sizeable estate. The plaintiff is seeking payment from the estate of Ms Reid in recognition of services rendered to Ms Reid during her lifetime. The defendants apply to strike out the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The application is opposed.

Background

[2]Ms Reid died on 6 March 2019. She left a last will dated 14 February 2019.

[3] Probate of Ms Reid’s last will was granted to the plaintiff and the defendants on 26 April 2019. The plaintiff has since resigned as an executor of the will.

[4] Ms Reid never married and in later life her only close relative was an older sister, Ms Vacy Reid. Vacy died in 2012.

[5] The plaintiff was Ms Reid’s goddaughter. From the 1970s until Ms Reid’s death, the plaintiff provided services to Ms Reid. The details of those services are set out in a schedule to the amended statement of claim. The plaintiff considers the services went well beyond what might be normally expected of a godchild or a close friend.

[6] The plaintiff did not discuss with Ms Reid her financial circumstances or the terms of her will. The plaintiff understood Ms Reid’s financial circumstances were “average” and that she could not afford to remunerate the plaintiff for her services.

[7] As it transpires, Ms Reid was very wealthy. The plaintiff received a modest bequest under Ms Reid’s will. The residue was divided amongst charities and a school. The plaintiff was surprised and unhappy at the terms of the will in light of the extent of the services she had rendered to Ms Reid and the size of the estate.

[8] The plaintiff filed this proceeding on 24 April 2020. Her statement of claim pleaded four causes of action. She made claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary

Promises) Act 1949 and for unjust enrichment and also challenged the validity of Ms Reid’s will alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

[9] Following a change of the plaintiff’s counsel, an amended statement of claim was filed on 14 December 2020. It pleads a single cause of action. The defendants applied to strike out…

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 Thomas v Mathias

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Mathias [2021] NZHC 461
Case: [2021] NZHC 461
Decision Date: 11 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand in Christchurch heard a case between Anna Elizabeth Thomas, the plaintiff, and Maxwell Charles Mathias and Andrew George William Logan, the defendants, who are the executors of the estate of Hilda Elizabeth Reid. The plaintiff is seeking payment from the estate of Ms Reid in recognition of services rendered to her during her lifetime. The defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The application was opposed.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the application to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim and whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff's claim was based on the modern doctrine of equitable estoppel. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim was untenable as a matter of law, given the absence of a clear and express promise or assurance from Ms Reid that she would reward the plaintiff for her services. They also argued that the claim was an attempt to circumvent the requirements of a testamentary promises claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim addressed all the elements required to establish a claim of equitable estoppel. The court accepted that the plaintiff had a reasonable belief that Ms Reid was unable to reward or compensate her for the services rendered, and that this belief was reasonably relied upon to her detriment. The court also found that it would be unconscionable for Ms Reid to depart from the belief or expectation created by her conduct. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was arguable and could not be struck out summarily. The court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to costs (for one counsel) on a 2B basis plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.

Orders