IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2016-485-240 [2016] NZHC 1321

IN THE ESTATE OF IVAN PATRICK CRONIN

Hearing:	On Papers	

Counsel:	
G P Traves for Applicant	

Judgment:	
17 June 2016	

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]       This is an application that will instructions given to an officer of the Public Trust be declared a valid will of the deceased.   The deceased passed away on the evening following the giving of instructions to the Public Trust.

[2]       On 11 November 2013 Mr Cronin contacted an officer of the Public Trust with whom he had past dealings.  He requested the officer, Mr Alan Timu, to visit him in Christchurch Hospital in order to take new will instructions.   Mr Cronin indicated he was in hospital pending further assessment and a move to a rest home.

[3]       Mr Timu deposes that Mr Cronin was sitting up and alert.   The new will instructions differed from the existing will because since that will his wife had died, and he had drifted out of contact with the other specific beneficiaries.   He now wished to leave his estate to a friend.

[4]       Mr Timu took the instructions and returned to the Public Trust.  He entered the instructions into the Public Trust’s computer system by completing the electronic
Questionnaire.  Mr Timu was not at work the next day, but returned the following

ESTATE OF I P CRONIN [2016] NZHC 1321 [17 June 2016]

day only to learn that Mr Cronin had passed away in the night following Mr Timu’s

visit.

[5]       Previous decisions have confirmed it is not necessary for the deceased to have seen the will instructions.1   There have also been examples of instruction sheets for  a  will  being  validated.2      In  Re  Taigel,  the  instructions  took  the  form  of  a solicitor’s file note recording his meeting with the deceased.3

[6]       The present circumstances satisfy me the statutory test is met.  Mr Timu was summonsed for the express purpose of receiving instructions for a new will.   It is apparent the deceased had considered the matter, and was clear on his intentions. There is no reason to consider there was a change of mind between the giving of instructions and his passing.

[7]       I am satisfied the will instructions entered by Mr Timu on 11 November 2013 and now appearing in the form of the Public Trust Questionnaire for Will represent the testamentary intentions of Mr Cronin, and I declare the Questionnaire to be a valid will.

[8]       I note for the record that all persons who were to take under the previous will have indicated their consent to the present application.

Simon France J

1	Re Campbell (deceased) [2014] 2 NZLR 706.
2	Naidu v Agrew [2012] NZHC 2134.
3	Re Taigel [2014] NZHC 844.