Winiana v Hook - [2025] NZHC 2115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-239

[2025] NZHC 2115

UNDER Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an order that a document be declared to be a valid will of the deceased RANGIMARIA ANZAC (ZAC) WILLIAMS

BETWEEN

JOSEPH CLAYTON TED WINIANA

Applicant

AND

SALLY HOOK

Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

D M Kerr for Applicant S J Iorns for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Costs]

Introduction

[1] On 3 June 2025 I issued a minute recording the consent orders sought by the parties resolving this proceeding. The only remaining issue is the question of costs, which are now determined in this judgment.

Background

[2] The substantive proceeding concerned Mr Winiana’s application to declare a document a valid will of the late Rangimaria Williams under s 14 of the Wills

WINIANA v HOOK [2025] NZHC 2115 [30 July 2025]

Act 2007. The application was opposed by Ms Hook and was scheduled for a hearing on 3 June 2025. However, in a memorandum filed the day of the hearing counsel confirmed the terms of settlement. At the parties’ request my minute directed that:1
Costs are reserved, to be determined on the papers if the parties cannot agree. The applicant shall file and serve costs submissions within 10 working days and the respondent shall file and serve costs submissions within a further 10 working days.

[3] I also encouraged the parties to reach agreement on costs rather than remit the matter to the Court, observing that:2

Costs should be determined predictably in accordance with the time allocations in the High Court Rules 2016.

The costs now claimed by the applicant

[4] In a memorandum of 16 June 2025 the applicant seeks increased or indemnity costs. The applicant’s actual legal costs exceed $53,000 and disbursements. He says scale costs amount to $19,956.50 before any uplift. Immediately after the court orders were made, the applicant proposed that the respondent should pay costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements. The respondent refused that offer and the applicant has been forced, once more, to apply to the Court.

[5] In response, the respondent argues for reduced costs, or for costs to lie where they fall. First, the respondent conceded the application very shortly after the applicant filed “reply” evidence only a matter of two weeks before the hearing and as soon as it became apparent that the application was going to succeed. Second, the respondent says she is in poor health and had issues finding representation, which resulted in delays in the management of the proceedings which should not aggravate the proper measure of costs.

Costs principles

[6] All matters relating to costs are discretionary,3 although that discretion must be exercised on a principled basis. So far as possible the determination of costs should be

1 Minute of Isac J, 3 June 2025 at [3(i)].
2 At [4].
3 High Court Rules…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Winiana v Hook and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2115
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Winiana v Hook involved an application by Joseph Clayton Ted Winiana to declare a document as the valid will of the deceased, Rangimaria Anzac (Zac) Williams, under Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007. The application was opposed by Sally Hook, who argued against the document's validity. The court's primary task was to determine the costs incurred by both parties due to the settlement reached before the scheduled hearing on 3 June 2025.

The legal issues focused on the principles governing the allocation of costs in such proceedings. The court had to decide whether the respondent should bear the costs of the proceedings, and if so, whether the costs should be on a standard basis or increased due to the respondent's conduct. The applicant claimed costs exceeding $53,000, while the respondent argued for reduced costs or for costs to lie where they fall. The court considered whether the respondent's opposition was reasonable and whether her health issues justified the delays in managing the proceedings.

The court reasoned that the respondent's continued opposition despite receiving evidence that the signature on the will was authentic was unreasonable and contributed unnecessarily to the time and expense of the proceeding. The respondent's failures to comply with the court's timetabling directions also contributed to the costs. As such, the court determined that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant on a 2B basis from 9 September 2024, with an additional uplift of 30% for the unreasonable conduct. For all other steps, the costs on a 2B basis were deemed appropriate.

The final order mandated that the respondent must pay costs to the applicant in the sum of $24,533, along with disbursements of $265 for the court filing fee and fee for sealing the orders.

Orders