Wightman v Public Trust - [2013] NZHC 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV2012-409-001312 [2013] NZHC 671

UNDER The Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Robert Wallace Wightman

BETWEEN COLIN MARK WIGHTMAN, RICHARD CHARLES CLELAND OLDFIELD, RODGER WIGHTMAN ANDERSON, ANN MARIE FLOOD AND PAMELA JANE PARROT
Plaintiffs

ANDPUBLIC TRUST Defendant

AND ROBERT WILLIAM WIGHTMAN

Hearing: 25 March 2013

Counsel: Ms S Grieve and Mr S Caradus for Plaintiff
Mr N Till QC and Mr R Calvert for Defendant
Mr I Hunt for Robert Wightman

Judgment: 26 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

The proceeding

[1] The plaintiffs are grandchildren of the late Robert Wightman who died in

1965. He was a farmer in the Methven area, having two farm properties and a leasehold interest in other farmland. The claimants seek:

(a) an extension of time to bring this family protection claim; and

WIGHTMAN AND OTHERS V PUBLIC TRUST HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-001312 [26 March 2013]

(b) increased provision from their grandfather’s estate to provide for their

proper maintenance and support.

[2] The matter for my determination is a separate question arising from an earlier family protection claim. This was a claim by members of the previous generation, three of the testator’s five children who sought further provision from their father’s estate. That claim was resolved by a judgment of Wilson J delivered in the then Supreme Court on 26 October 1971. The issue is whether that judgment gives rise to a cause of action or issue estoppel in relation to the new claim.

[3] Another of the grandchildren also named Robert Wightman asserts an estoppel. To explain its basis it is necessary to outline something of the background and to refer to the 1971 decision.

Family background

[4] The testator was predeceased by his wife, but left five children, three daughters and two sons. Each received some form of provision from the estate, such as a life interest, a bequest of stock and farm equipment, and/or an annuity. The residue of the estate was to be held upon trust for grandchildren and great- grandchildren in such shares and proportions as the testator’s daughter Clara should appoint. Clara, I note did not marry or have children and was also the oldest of the Wightman family. She did not die until recently, in August 2011. By her will she appointed shares in the residuary estate to 15 grandchildren, all of whom were living at the date of the testator’s death.

[5] It is the exercise of the power of appointment which has given rise to this proceeding. Some grandchildren are disappointed as to the benefit they received from their grandfather’s estate. I note that the residuary estate has a present value of several million dollars.

[6] This proceeding was commenced in mid 2012, within 12 months of Clara’s

death. Five grandchildren from three of the four families are claimants. The Public

Trust represents the estate. It has taken the normal stance by providing information to the Court, but otherwise adopting a…

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 [2013] NZHC 671
Case: [2013] NZHC 671
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wightman v Public Trust involves grandchildren of the late Robert Wightman seeking increased provision from their grandfather's estate. The plaintiffs argue that the Public Trust, as the representative of the estate, should make increased provision for their proper maintenance and support. The legal issues in this case are whether the previous family protection claim by the children of Robert Wightman gives rise to a cause of action or issue estoppel in relation to the current claim by the grandchildren. The court was required to decide whether the previous judgment precludes the current claim and whether either cause of action or issue estoppel applies in this case.

The court held that neither cause of action nor issue estoppel applies in this case. The court found that the previous judgment did not determine that there was no breach of moral duty in relation to the grandchildren, as they could not have claimed at that time due to the provisions of the Family Protection Act. The court also found that there was no implicit determination concerning the power of appointment in the previous judgment, as the issue did not require a finding by the judge. The court directed that a memorandum be filed within a month, including an agreed timetable for the steps to progress matters to a substantive hearing.

The court's judgment provides guidance on the application of estoppel in family protection cases and the requirements for a finding of estoppel. The court's decision also highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework and provisions of the Family Protection Act in such cases. The outcome of this case will have implications for future family protection claims and the potential for estoppel to preclude such claims.

Orders