Legal Research
Cases
Wightman v Public Trust

Wightman v Public Trust

Case [2014] NZHC 3124 9 December 2014

Proper Maintenance and Support

Moral Duty

Family Protection Act 1955

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV 2012-409-001312 [2014] NZHC 3124

BETWEEN
COLIN MARK WIGHTMAN, RICHARD

CHARLES CLELAND OLDFIELD, RODGER WIGHTMAN ANDERSON, ANN MARIE FLOOD and PAMELA JANE PARROTT

AND

PUBLIC TRUST AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT WALLACE WIGHTMAN

Defendant

Hearing: 15, 16 & 17 September 2014

Counsel:

S Grieve and S Caradus for Plaintiffs
N Till QC and R Calvert for Defendant
I Hunt and D Weatherley for Parties directed to be served

Judgment:

9 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Introduction

[1] Robert Wallace Wightman (Wallace) was a Canterbury farmer. He died in

1965 leaving a large estate comprising of various land blocks near Methven and Rakaia. His eldest daughter, Clara, was left with the responsibility to distribute his residuary estate to “any or all” of his grandchildren. Clara passed away in 2011 and left it to one of them. The residuary estate comprises a farm valued at about $11.5 million. This proceeding concerns a claim by five of the grandchildren against Wallace’s estate on the basis that he failed to discharge his moral duty to them by, in short, delegating an unfettered discretion to Clara to distribute the residuary estate.

[2] The parties agree that this proceeding gives rise to four key issues, namely:

WIGHTMAN & ORS v PUBLIC TRUST [2014] NZHC 3124 [9 December 2014]

(a) whether the estate has already been finally distributed;

(b) whether the five grandchildren should be granted an extension of time

to make a claim against Wallace’s estate;

(c) whether there has been a breach of Wallace’s moral duty to the grandchildren; and

(d) if relief is to be granted, what is the nature of that relief?

Background

[3] The Wightman family has deep roots in Canterbury. Isabella Mary Wightman (nee Houston) came to Methven in 1902, the daughter of Irish immigrants, Clarissa and Adam. She married Wallace on 4 February 1913 and moved to the Rakaia Gorge homestead in about 1915. A family soon followed. Clara was born in 1915, Charles (Charl) in 1918, Robert Wilson (Wilson) in 1921 and Rebecca and Margaret in 1922 and 1923. Wallace farmed five properties between Methven and the Rakaia Gorge until the Great Depression. The banks closed down the farms and as with many New
Zealand families, the Wightman family “struggled through those stressful years”.1

[4] Over the course of the next three decades, Wallace and Isabella accumulated a large estate comprising several properties in the Methven-Rakaia region. This included farming properties known as “Rangatira,” “Poffs Reserve,” “Winterslow,” and a farm property at Arundel Road in the Rakaia Gorge.2

[5] Isabella passed away in August 1960 leaving successive life interests in the Arundel Road property to Wallace, her son, Charl and her grandson, David Miles Wightman. David would ultimately surrender his life interest in the property in January 2012 and it was sold at auction for about $7,810,000. The proceeds of sale
were distributed in accordance with Isabella’s will to David, Rebecca’s three

1 The source of this…

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 Wightman v Public Trust

Details

AGLC: Wightman v Public Trust [2014] NZHC 3124
Case: [2014] NZHC 3124
Decision Date: 9 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wightman v Public Trust [2014] NZHC 3124 involved a claim by five grandchildren against the estate of Robert Wallace Wightman, who died in 1965. The grandchildren argued that Wallace breached his moral duty by leaving an unfettered discretion to his daughter, Clara, to distribute his residuary estate. The court had to decide four issues: whether the estate had been finally distributed, whether an extension of time to make a claim against the estate should be granted, whether there was a breach of Wallace's moral duty to the grandchildren, and if relief was to be granted, what the nature of that relief would be.

The court held that there had not been a final disposition of the estate, as the Public Trust still retained legal ownership and possession of the Rangatira farm. The court also found that the delay in bringing the claim was excusable, as the plaintiffs did not have direct knowledge about Clara's intention to exercise her power of appointment solely in favour of Robert William until they became aware of the terms of her will. The court assessed the moral duty owed to the grandchildren, concluding that it encompassed the requirement to provide familial recognition. The court found that Wallace breached his moral duty to the grandchildren by not providing for them, as five factors combined to take the case outside the normal run of cases. Finally, the court granted relief by awarding $150,000 to each of the five claimants, reserving leave to the parties to revert for timetabling orders in terms of the management of this issue.

Orders