WEN-CHUAN LIN

[2025] NZHC 748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-707

[2025] NZHC 748

UNDER

Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE ESTATE AND

IN THE MATTER

of WAYNE ANDREW GIBSON

of an application by WEN-CHUAN LIN for an order that a document be declared a valid Will

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	K A McCullough for applicant
Date of judgment:	1 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 April 2025 at 3.30pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

DG Law, Auckland

RE ESTATE OF WAYNE ANDREW GIBSON [2025] NZHC 748 [1 April 2025]

[1]    Wayne Gibson died on 26 July 2024. I offer the Court’s condolence to his survivors.

[2]    Mr Gibson left no will. His spouse, Wen-Chuan Lin—as successor on intestacy to her late husband’s estate, Mr Gibson having no children—seeks my declaration, under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007, an evidenced document dated 23 February 2024 is Mr Gibson’s valid will.

Background

[3]    On 23 February 2024, at his and Ms Lin’s home, Mr Gibson signed a document titled “Last will and testament of Wayne Andrew Gibson” in the presence of his brother, who also signed the document. The document contended to appoint Ms Lin and his brother as executors of his will. The brother since has renounced any right or title to probate or execution of Mr Gibson’s estate.

[4]    Ms Lin says only the three of them knew of the document when it was signed. She is not aware of any previous will made by Mr Gibson. Ms Lin explains the document determinedly was made at the end of Mr Gibson’s chemotherapy treatment and prior to a bone marrow transplant to relieve his incurable illness. After a specific bequest to another relative, the document would have Ms Lin as residual beneficiary of Mr Gibson’s estate.

Validation of wills

[5]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.

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

(1)is a document;

(2)appears to be a will, in that it is to be made by Mr Gibson, and seeks to dispose of property to which he was entitled when he died;1 and

(3)does not comply with s 11 (which relevantly requires the document to be signed and witnessed by at least two witnesses).

[7]    I may declare the document Mr Gibson’s valid will if I am satisfied the document expresses his testamentary intentions. The discretion conferred by s 14 is residual only: good reason would be required to refuse an order if so satisfied.2 I am essentially to “evaluate the relevant circumstances and reach a conclusion”.3 I am to take “a robust approach”.4

Does the document express Mr Gibson’s testamentary intentions?

[8]    Given the circumstances of the  2024 document’s making as explained by  Ms Lin, I am satisfied the document expresses Mr Gibson’s testamentary intentions,5 for disposition of his property.6

1      Wills Act 2007, s 8(1).

2      Balchin v Hall [2016] NZHC 837 at [11].

3      Re Zhu (deceased) HC New Plymouth CIV-2010-443-21, 17 May 2010 at [7].

4      Watt v Owston-Doyle [2015] NZHC 1292 at [12], citing Re Feron [2012] NZHC 44, [2012] 2 NZLR 551 at [11].

5      Wills Act, s 14(2).

6      Section 8(1)(b)(i).

Result

[9]    I declare the original of the document marked “A” annexed to Ms Lin’s affidavit sworn 27 March 2025 is the valid will of Wayne Andrew Gibson. I direct the costs of this application be paid out of his estate.

—Jagose J