Supreme Court Judge’s Pronouncements On Testators’ Rights

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 8

Supreme Court Judge’s Pronouncements On Testators’ Rights

“This is a claim which should never have been brought,” said Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday, when a Wellington woman—said to have assets of £4OOO, and her husband, a retired master mariner, assets of £l2,ooo—sought a half-share of her mother’s £l6OO estate.

The applicant, Marie Edith Angus, claimed such provision from the estate of Janet Pryde, a widow, formerly of Lyttelton, who died on May 7, 1965, and from which estate Mrs Angus had been entrely Excluded. Evidence was given during yesterday's hearing, although disputed, that Mrs Angus had been estranged from her mother. The sole beneficiary in the estate was the applicant’s brother, Reginald Gordon Pryde, a Wellington company director, who opposed his sister’s claim. His Honour dismissed Mrs Angus’s application, and refused an order for her costs to come out of the estate. “Apparently, it is necessary to say again the the Family Protection Act does not deprive persons of the right to do as they wish with their own estates,” said his Honour. “The Court is only justified in interfering if it is shown that the dispositions made by a testator have failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of a surviving spouse, child, or grandchild. There was no magic, said his Honour, in the idea that children should be treated

equally in the disposition of an estate.

“A testatrix is entitled to be capricious, so long as she does not neglect to provide properly for the adequate maintenance of a daughter if she is in need,” he said. But in the present case, there was nothing unjust in Mrs Pryde bequeathing the whole of her estate to her son, who with a wife and two children had considerable obligations—and was in £2OOO overdraft with his bank—whereas Captain and Mrs Angus, with no children, had none.

“It is not appropriate for a woman, possessing £4OOO to claim from an estate as small as this, which has been left to someone who had a proper claim on his mother’s bounty,” his Honour said. Mrs Angus, whose case was conducted by Mr J. H. C. Larsen, of Wellington, had contended that, although able to manage financially at the moment, “exigencies and contingencies in the future” justified her claim on her mother’s estate. “There is nothing unfair or unjust in this will unless it can be shown that the applicant has some real need for further provision,” said his Honour. Mrs Angus had failed to satisfy him on that, and her claim must be dismissed, he said.

Mr K. Robinson, of Wellington, conducted the case for the defendant, Pryde.

Mr P. C. M. Straubel appeared for the executors of the estate, the Perpetual Trustees, Ltd., but made no submission.