Supreme Court corrects prior interpretation of relationship property agreement in estate case

In May 2016, before the High Court, the respondent successfully applied for an appointment as estate administrator. The respondent distributed some cash sums and personal chattels to herself under s 77 of the Administration Act 1969. 

The respondent also transferred to herself the share of the deceased in the Moumoukai Road property, where she continued to reside without paying rent until the May 2021 property sale for $1.2m. 

High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings

The High Court found the respondent entitled to her share of the house under the relationship property agreement and a significant portion of the estate under the Administration Act’s intestacy provisions. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. 

The appellants, who were the two adult children of the deceased, asserted that they deserved their father’s share of the house because the respondent was only entitled to her share under the agreement. 

Supreme Court grants appeal

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordered the respondent to pay costs of $38,800 and the usual disbursements, and permitted second counsel. The Supreme Court saw an error on the part of the Court of Appeal. 

According to the Supreme Court, under the agreement, the respondent accepted entitlement to only a life interest in the deceased’s share of the Moumoukai Road property and promised not to claim (and thus to disclaim) any beneficial interest in his property share. 

While the respondent was unsuccessful, the Supreme Court noted that she had succeeded before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that it was not criticising her legal position or her assumption regarding her entitlement to benefit from the estate. 

The court shared the Law Commission’s concerns with the current law’s complexity and the need for reform. 

Issues not addressed

The Supreme Court noted that it did not determine the following issues: 

• whether the respondent was entitled to be the estate administrator under r 27.35 of the High Court Rules 2016 and s 6 of the Administration Act 
• whether to identify the respondent’s interest in the Moumoukai Road property under clause 4.2 of the agreement because the death meant that the parties had separated or stopped living together as contemplated by that clause, rather than assessing her entitlement as an equal share 
• whether the respondent’s life interest in the deceased’s share under clause 4.4 ended when the respondent sold the Moumoukai Road property 

Costs orders

Regarding the Court of Appeal’s costs award, the Supreme Court set it aside and replaced it with an order for standard appeal costs on a band A basis, plus the usual disbursements, in the appellants’ favour. 

According to the Supreme Court, costs in the High Court of New Zealand should lie where they fell. 

Supreme Court’s prior estate cases

Here are some other recent estate-related decisions by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. 

In a case among siblings revolving around property their parents had passed down, the Supreme Court issued an 8 May 2026 decision denying a stay application upon determining that the Court of Appeal of New Zealand had applied settled principles to a stay application before that court. 

In a case involving a will that provided significantly more to some beneficiaries than others, the Supreme Court made a 4 May 2026 decision declining leave to appeal sought by a daughter who alleged that her mother should “level up” the distribution of the deceased father’s estate among three children. 

On 31 October 2025, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in an estate proceeding, but instructed counsel to focus on the interplay between an agreement to contract out of the PRA and entitlements under the Administration Act’s intestacy provisions. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!