Willis v Thompson

[2017] NZHC 1645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-002840 [2017] NZHC 1645

BETWEEN

LESLIE ARNOLD WILLIS

First Plaintiff

DONALD BRUCE THOMAS Second Plaintiff

AND

PAMELA JOYCE THOMPSON First Defendant

ANZ BANK (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITD Second Defendant

Hearing:	27 March 2017
Appearances:	Margaret Matthew for the Plaintiffs Stephen Bryers for the First Defendant Second Defendant abides the decision of the Court
Judgment:	18 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 July 2017 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

WILLIS & AMPR v THOMPSON & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1645 [18 July 2017]

Contents

Paragraph

Number

Introduction ..............................................................................................................[1] Background...............................................................................................................[7] The pleadings ..........................................................................................................[41] The issues ................................................................................................................[47] Unconscionable bargain

Legal principles....................................................................................................[48]

Was Mr Willis under a “special disadvantage”? .................................................[68]

Did Mrs Thompson unconscionably take advantage of that disability or disadvantage? ......................................................................................................[73]

Undue influence

Legal principles....................................................................................................[94]

Laches

Defence case....................................................................................................... [119] Principles ...........................................................................................................[121] Factual background ...........................................................................................[125] Analysis ..............................................................................................................[130] What is the appropriate relief to be granted? ...................................................[138] Result .....................................................................................................................[139] Costs ......................................................................................................................[140]

Introduction

[1]      On  8  September  2000  Arnold  Willis  (“Mr  Willis”)  died  of  pneumonia secondary to terminal cancer in the home he had lived in with his family for many years.

[2]      For  some  considerable  time  prior  to  his  death  he  had  been  unwell  and effectively wheelchair bound.

[3]      The defendant, Mrs Thompson, was initially employed as his paid caregiver. However, when her employment ceased Mrs Thompson claims she continued to provide  some  caregiving  services,  mostly  on  weekends.    A  few  weeks  before Mr Willis  died,  funds  which  had  been  previously  held  in  his  sole  name  were transferred  into  a  Bonus  Bonds  account  in  the  joint  names  of  Mr  Willis  and Mrs Thompson.

[4]      Normally,  on  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties  such  funds  would  pass automatically by survivorship to the other party, in this case Mrs Thompson. However, Mr Willis’ only son, Leslie Willis, advised the bank that Mrs Thompson’s title to the Bonus Bonds was challenged.   In 2001, as a result of Leslie Willis’ intervention, the ANZ Bank (“the Bank”) placed a stop on the account to prevent the redemption of the Bonus Bonds pending resolution of the dispute.

[5]      Sixteen  years  later  that  stop  remains  in  force.     In  November  2015

Leslie Willis  issued  the  present  proceedings  against  Mrs  Thompson  based  on unconscionable bargain and undue influence.  Declaratory relief is sought in respect of the funds held in the Bonus Bonds account as the holder of the funds.  The Bank has been named as a defendant but has taken no steps in these proceedings and will abide the Court’s decision.1

[6]      Mrs Thompson denies any undue influence or equitable fraud.   She says it was perfectly understandable for Mr Willis to want to make a modest gift in her

favour in recognition of their friendship and the services she had rendered free of

1      The second plaintiff is the executor of Mr Willis’ last will dated 29 September 2000.

charge during…