Van Rijn aka LaFleur v Van Rijn

[2022] NZHC 2609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1279

[2022] NZHC 2609

IN THE ESTATE

Of ANNA MARIA VAN RIJN, also known as ANNA MARIA LAFLEUR

BETWEEN

FRANCIS EVERARDUS MARIE VAN RIJN, RENE TITUS MARIE VAN RYN, and SIMON JOHN OLDBURY JONES

Plaintiffs

AND

MARIETTE MARIA BERNADETTE VAN RYN

First Defendant

ROSITA ANTOINETTE ALIDA MARIA MURRAY

Second Defendant

SASKIA ROBINA MARIA VAN RYN
Third Defendant

ANTONIA LIDWINA MARIA BYNEVELT

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers at Auckland

Appearances:

S A Grant for the Plaintiffs

J G Miles KC for the Defendants
R C Woods for the current executors

Judgment:

10 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Application to recall]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2022 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

VAN RIJN v VAN RYN [2022] NZHC 2609 [10 October 2022]

[1]                 On 30 September 2022 I issued a judgment in this matter replacing the executors of the estate of Anna Maria van Rijn upon the application of the defendant.1

[2]                 By memoranda dated 4 October 2022, Mrs Grant, counsel for the original executors including Francis van Rijn and Rene van Ryn (referred to in my judgment as “the plaintiff brothers”), has raised various issues.

[3]                 The most substantive of the issues raised is a request to recall my decision to enable all of the beneficiaries including the plaintiff brothers the opportunity to comment before the final order to replace the executors is made, noting that it appears that neither Mrs Grant nor her instructing solicitors considered it appropriate to advise the plaintiff brothers directly.

[4]                 I acknowledge that a process involving having the judgment lie in Court for a period was discussed at the hearing. However it is, as Mr Miles has noted, implicit in my judgment that having reserved my decision and considered the evidence before the Court, the failure of Mr Goodwin and Mr Meltzer to keep the beneficiaries informed of the allegations and counter allegations evident from the executors’ own report makes it clear that regardless of the views of any of the other beneficiaries, the understandable loss of confidence that has resulted on the part of the defendants meant Mr Goodwin and Mr Meltzer could not remain as executors. I therefore decline to recall my judgment.

[5]With regard to the other matters raised by Mrs Grant:

(a)I agree it is appropriate for Mrs Grant and her instructing solicitors to make a formal application for leave to withdraw as otherwise they will remain on the record; and

(b)I consider that there is no need for any more detailed directions, far less a timetable, to enable Mrs Grant to file an application with regard to any attempt to secure payment of outstanding fees incurred by the plaintiff brothers.

1      van Rijn v van Ryn [2022] NZHC 2498.

Powell J