No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘If you look after me, I will leave you my estate’: The enforcement of testamentary promises in England and New Zealand
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Abstract
Occasionally, a case comes to court in which a disappointed relative or other carer seeks the enforcement of a promise made by a testator to leave them all or part of their estate if the relative or other carer looks after them or provides some other service. This article compares and contrasts the courts’ response, in England and in New Zealand, to the enforcement of these testamentary promises. In England the courts have struggled to provide redress with the tools available from the common law and equity. Despite an array of possible remedies from contract to estoppel and restitutionary remedies, few claimants have proved successful. The sanctity of testamentary freedom and formalities has prevailed over the injustice caused to the disappointed carer. Yet in New Zealand testamentary promises are commonly enforced under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, a statute passed specifically to loosen the grip of testamentary freedom in the, face of such promises. Under the influence of this statutory impetus, the New Zealand courts have shown a liberal and flexible approach to the interpretation of this statute that is both interesting and enlightening. They have recognised that in the personal context of the testamentary promise traditional notions of contractual promises and consideration or detrimental reliance need to be rethought. Perhaps it is time for us also to rethink our approach to the treatment of those who provide unpaid care or other services when they have been led to expect some sort of testamentary recompense.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2000
References
1. (1883) 8 App Cas 467.
2. (1998) 1 FLR 806.
3. (1998) 2 FLR 470. Other examples include Re Gonin dec'd (1979) 1 Ch 16; Wakeham v Mackenzie (1968) 2 All ER 783; Re Basham (1986) 1 WLR 1498; and Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029.
4. In England the notable successes have been Wakeman v Mackenzie (1968) 1 WLR 1175 based upon part performance and Re Basham (1986) 1 WLR 149, Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029 and the unreported case of Walton v Walton (14 April 1994 CA) based upon estoppel.
5. For the historical development of testamentary freedom see Oughton Tyler's Family Provision (London: Butterworths, 3rd edn, 1997).
6. See Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Interestingly, New Zealand was the first common law jurisdiction to introduce a similar principle in their Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1900 (NZ), now the Family Protection Act 1955 (NZ).
7. See, for instance, the marriage contract cases of Hammersley v de Biel (1845) 121 & Fin and Synge v Synge (1894) 1 QB 466 and the more modern examples of Parker v Clark (1960) 1 WLR 286; Schaefer v Schuhmann (1972) AC 572; Palmer v Bunk of New South Wales (1973) 2 NSWLR 244; and Reynolds v Marshall and Von Strummer (1952) NZLR 384.
8. Section 2(1). In New Zealand similar requirements are found in the Contract Enforcement Act 1956 (NZ) and throughout common law jurisdictions similar requirements are found based upon adoption of the Statute of Frauds 1677.
9. (1971) AC 886.
10. Ogilvie v Ryan (1976) 2 NSWR 504 and McFetridge v Bowater-Wright (1996) NZFLR 429, where claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (NZ) and a constructive trust were both successful.
11. Rathwell v Rathwell (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 289, Sorochan v Sorochan (1986) 29 DLR (4th) 1 and Pettkus v Beccker (1980) 117 DLR (3d) 257.
12. Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; Gilles v Keogh (1989) NZLR 327; Phillips v Phillips (1993) 3 NZLR 159; and Duly v Gilbert (1993) 3 NZLR 731. This remedial application of the constructive trust has been developed in the context of the matrimonial home but the analogy to testamentary promises is obvious and has been recognised in New Zealand (see Wischnewsky v Public Trustee (1995) NZFLR 166) and in Canada (see Re Spears v Levy (1974) 52 DLR (3d) 146).
13. Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd (1977) 3 All ER 1.
14. Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (1991) 1 AC 107.
15. Maxwell v Lady Montacute (1719) Prec Ch 526 and Wood v Midgley (1854) 5 De GM & G 41.
16. (1968) 2 All ER 783 at 788.
17. (1974) 52 DLR (3d) 301. The issue appears to have been raised but dropped in Re Gonin (1979) 1 Ch 16 at 26.
18. (1954) 3 DLR (2d) 785.
19. (1957) VR 509.
20. (1973) QL 314.
21. See eg Graham v Murphy (1997) 1 FLR 860; Re Pearce dec'd (1998) 2 FLR 705; and G Miller ‘Provision for Adult Children under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975’ (1995) Conv 22.
22. (1999) Times, 26 January.
23. Initially in the Law Reform Act 1944 (NZ). See Appendix A.
24. For legislative history see Nealon v Public Trustee (1949) NZLR 148; Jones v Public Trustee (1962) NZLR 363; McCormack v Foley (1983) NZLR 57; and Re Welch (1990) 3 NZLR 1. It has been suggested that the legislation ‘began as an attempt to rectify an erroneous reading of the law of contract induced by a misleading passage in Halsbury's Law of England’: see B Coote ‘Testamentary Promises Jurisdiction in New Zealand’ in J F Northey (ed) Essays in Law (London: Butterworths, 1965) p 8.
25. The similarities and distinctions are noted in a number of cases: see eg McCormack v Foley (1983) NZLR 57.
26. Per Williamson J in Parata v McGowan (1994) NZFLR 937 at 943.
27. A review of succession law undertaken by the New Zealand Law Commission has not revealed any significant difficulties with the statute: see report No 39 of the New Zealand Law Commission (NZLC R39) published in August 1997.
28. Section 3(8). Alternative claims were brought in the cases of McFetridge v Bowter-Wright (1996) NZFLR 429 (constructive trust) and Wischnewsky v Public Trustee (1995) NZFLR 166 (unjust enrichment).
29. See para 85 and Part 4 Report 9 of the New Zealand Law Commission (NZLC R39).
30. See eg Taylor v Dickens (1998) 1 FLR 806.
31. (1949) NZLR 148 at 160.
32. (1979) 1 Ch 16 at 21.
33. The contract claimed was, in fact, that there was to be an immediate inter vivos gift in return for unpaid care. Mrs Gonin believed that she could not make a valid will in favour of her children, who had been born illegitimate. It was thus impossible to claim a contract to leave property by will.
34. Dillon v Public Trustee of New Zealand (1941) AC 294.
35. Re Marsland (1939) Ch 820.
36. Schaefer v Schumann (1972) AC 572 and Robinson v Ommanney (1883) 23 Ch D 285.
37. Synge v Synge (1894) 1 QB 466.
38. The courts have not been so lenient when construing a common understanding to support an estoppel: see Taylor v Dickens (1998) 1 FLR 806.
39. MacPhail v Torrance (1909) 25 TLR 810.
40. Palmer v Bank of New South Wales (1973) 2 NSWLR 244.
41. See Jones v Martin (1798) 6 Bro Parl Cas 437; Gregor v Kemp (1772) 3 Swan 404n; and comments of Lord Simon in Schaefer v Shumann (1972) AC 572 at 599.
42. See Walton J in Re Gonin (1979) 1 Ch 16 at 33H-34A and Weeks J in Taylor v Dickens (1998) 1FLR 806 at 818–819.
43. Compare Tanner v Tanner (1975) 1 WLR 1346; Horracks v Forray (1976) 1 WLR 230; and Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306.
44. Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 came into force on 28 September 1989.
45. Re-enacting and updating the Statute of Frauds 1677.
46. See Wakeham v Mackenzie (1968) 2 All ER 783.
47. See Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson (1995) 1 WLR 1567 and United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib (1996) 3 WLR 372.
48. (1996) 71 P & CR 32.
49. 12 CB 824.
50. See Carrington v Roots (1837) 2 M&W 248 and Reade v Lamb (1851) 6 Exch 130.
51. Wright v Robert Leonard (Developments) Ltd (1994) NPC 49 and Joscelyne v Nissan (1970) 2 QB 86.
52. (1883) 8 App Cas 467 at 475 and 476, per Lord Selborne.
53. Reliance on estoppel also does not offend s 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 where the promised reward is land: see Yaxley v Gotts (1999) Times, 8 July.
54. (1862) 4 De GF & J 517.
55. (1866) LR 1 HL 129.
56. (1884) 9 App Cas 699.
57. (1982) QB 133.
58. Inwards v Baker (1965) 2 QB 29.
59. See Re Basham dec'd (1986) 1 WLR 1498; Way ling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029: Public Trustee v Wadley (1997) 7 Tas R 35; and Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306.
60. (1998) 1 FLR 806.
61. (1998) 2 FLR 470.
62. It is clear that in both cases there was a strong personal bond, particularly between Mr Gillet and Mr Holt.
63. (1986) 1 WLR 1498.
64. (1995) 2 FLR 1029.
65. Per Carnforth J at 484A.
66. Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd (1982) QB 133; Re Basham dec'd (1986) 1 WLR 1498; and Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029.
67. See M Thompson ‘Emasculating estoppel’ (1998) Conv 210, but note M Dixon ‘Estoppel: A panacea for all wills?’ (1999) Conv 46.
68. (1986) 1 WLR 1498.
69. But see earlier case of Martin v Martin (1985) Times, 11 December.
70. (1883) 8 App Cas 467.
71. (1854) 5 HLC 185.
72. (1891) 3 Ch 82.
73. See L Sheridan Equitable estoppel today (1952) 15 Mod LR 325; D Allen ‘An equity to perfect a gift’ (1963) 79 LQR 246; and D Jackson ‘Estoppel as a sword’ (1965) 81 LQR 84, 223.
74. Legione v Hartley (1983) 152 CLR 406; Walton Stores v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; and Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394.
75. See Public Trustee v Wadley (1997) 7 Tas R 35 at 42, per Crawford J.
76. See M Halliwell ‘Estoppel: unconscionability as a cause of action’ (1994) 14 LS 15.
77. See Tucker v Guardian Trust and Executors Co of New Zealand Ltd (1961) NZLR 773, where the court found no contract to leave property by will but a sufficient testamentary promise.
78. (1949) NZLR 148.
79. Sees 2.
80. (1962) NZLR 363.
81. (1995) NZFLR 951.
82. High Court, Christchurch, 3 August 1990 M/211/89, noted in Webb Family Law Service (Wellington: Butterworths, 1998) para 7.934. See also Re Collier Cambus dec'd (1994) NZFLR 520.
83. (1959) NZLR 1026.
84. High Court, Whangarei, 3 March 1992 M72/87 noted in Webb Family Law Service (Wellington: Butterworths, 1998) para 7.934.
85. Heathwaite v NZ Insurance Co (1951) NZLR 353.
86. Edwards v NZ Insurance Co Ltd (1971) NZLR 114.
87. McMillan v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd (1956) NZLR 353.
88. Re Collier-Cambus dec'd (1994) NZFLR 520.
89. Hawkins v Public Trustee (1960) NZLR 305.
90. Wischnewsky v Public Trustee (1995) NZFLR 166.
91. Re Svatek High Court, Wellington, 17 October CP 387/94 noted in Webb Family Law Service (Wellington: Butterworths, 1998) para 7.934.
92. Re Astill dec'd High Court, Dunedin, 21 July 1998 AP3/98 noted in Webb Family Law Service (Wellington: Butterworths, 1998) para 7.934.
93. See s 3(2).
94. Re Welch (1990) 3 NZLR 1 and see N Peart ‘Re Welch: The boundaries of the Testamentary Promises Act’ (1991) NZLJ 77.
95. Nealon v Public Trustee (1949) NZLR 148: Public Trustee v Blick (1973) 1 NZLR 302; and Re Dedden dec'd (1998) NZFLR 868.
96. For the nature of the claimant's interest, see W Lee ‘Contracts to make wills’ (1971) 87 LQR 358.
97. (1976) AC 536.
98. See (1968) 2 All ER 783 at 784, 788.
99. In Gillet v Holt (1998) FLR 470 and in the unreported decision of Jones v Watkin (referred to in Gillet v Holt) there was held to be no adequate detriment.
100. See Grunt v Edwards (1986) Ch 638 and A Lawson ‘The things we do for love: detrimental reliance and the family home’ (1996) 16 LS 218.
101. See Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029 at 1032 and E Cooke ‘Reliance and estoppel’ (1995) 111 LQR 389. See also Public Trustee v Wadley (1997) 7 Tas R 35.
102. (1986) 1 WLR 1498.
103. (1980) I WLR 1306.
104. It was applied in Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029.
105. (1987) AC 114 and which were relied on in Taylor v Dickens (1998) FLR 806 at 821, but see the acknowledgment of the ‘inevitable inference’ of reliance made in Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan (1992) 1 WLR 113 at 118, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
106. (1998) FLR 470.
107. There has not been the same concern for the claimant to be aware of a testator's change of heart so as to limit the detriment that they may suffer: see Taylor v Dickens (1998) FLR 806 at 822.
108. Crabb v Arun District Council (1976) Ch 179.
109. Per Hillyer J in Re Archer (1990) 3 NZLR 737 at 743.
110. Per McCarthy J in Tucker v Guardian Trust & Executors Co of New Zealand Ltd (1961) NZLR 773 at 776.
111. Hawkins v Public Trustee (1960) NZLR 305.
112. Re Greenfield (1985) 2 NZLR 662.
113. Re Baker dec'd (1997) NZFLR 569.
114. Tucker v Guardian Trust and Executors Co of New Zealand Ltd (1961) NZLR 773.
115. Re Oliver (1968) NZLR 168.
116. Re Sellars dec'd (1996) NZFLR 971 but see Re Baker dec'd (1995) NZFLR 166.
117. Edwards v NZ Insurance Co Ltd (1971) NZLR 113.
118. Per Lord Cooke in Re Welch (1990) 3 NZLR 1 at 7.
119. Per Casey J in the Court of Appeal judgment in Re Welch (1989) 3 NZLR 1 at 8.
120. Per Williamson J in Parata v McGowan (1994) NZFLR 937 at 943.
121. Ibid.
122. Re Sellars dec'd (1996) NZFLR 971.
123. See eg Chambers v Weston (1982) 1 NZFLR 377; Re Lowe (1991) 1 NZLR 98; Wright v Holland (1995) 1 NZFLR 951; McFetridge v Bowater- Wright (1996) NZFLR 429; and Re Dedden dec'd (1998) NZFLR 868.
124. Vaney v Bright (1993) NZFLR 761.
125. Re Stowers dec'd (1991) 8 FRNZ 389 and Wright v Holland (1995) NZFLR 951.
126. (1991) 8 FRNZ 389.
127. (1998) NZFLR 868 at 877, per Potter J.
128. Per Williamson J in Re Crombie (unreported), referred to in Re Lowe (1991) 1 NZLR 98.
129. Eg in Re Dedden dec'd (1998) NZFLR 951 the testator was an alcoholic and in Vaney v Bright (1993) NZFLR 761 the testator suffered from aids.
130. (1991) 1 NZFLR 98; see also Vaney v Bright (1993) NZFLR 761 at n 129.
131. (1995) NZFLR 951; see also Re Dedden dec'd (1998) NZFLR 951 at n 129.
132. See comments of Elias J in Wright v Holland (1995) NZFLR 951 at 958.
133. Thwaites v Keruse (1993) 11 FRNZ 19.
134. Per North J in Jones v Public Trustee (1962) NZLR 363 at 374.
135. See Edwards v NZ Insurance Co Ltd (1971) NZLR 113, where a son's take-over of the family business provided the necessary services and was also beneficial to his business interests.
136. Re Welch (1990) 3 NZLR 1.
137. Jones v Public Trustee (1962) 3 NZLR 363 and Smith v Malley (1950) NZLR 145.
138. Tucker v Guardian Trust and Executors Co of New Zealand Ltd (1961) NZLR 113 and Re Mclntyre dec'd (1994) NZFLR 787.
139. (1990) 3 NZLR 1.
140. Per Hillyer J in Re Archer (1990) 3 NZLR 737 at 746.
141. Specific performance will not be available where some of the services have yet to be performed. The point was raised in Wakeham v Mackezie (1968) 2 All ER 783. See also Megic v Public Trustee (ACT) (1995) 59 FCR 165.
142. See eg Re Basham (1986) 1 WLR 1498, Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306 and Pascoe v Turner (1979) 1 WLR 431 although, compensation has provided a guide where it has been impractical to fulfil the expectation see Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 EG 1115 and Baker v Baker (1993) 2 FLR 247.
143. (1990) 170 CLR 394 but see Guimelli v Guimelli (1999) 161 ALR 473 where the High Court of Australia indicated that the expectation loss should be the prima facie entitlement but that qualification may be necessary to avoid injustice to others.
144. See E Cooke Estoppel and the protection of expectation (1997) LS 258, M Palowlowski Proprietory Estoppel: Satisfying the Equity (1997) 113 LQR 232 and A Robertson Reliance and expectation in estoppel remedies (1998) LS 360.
145. Public Trustee v Wadley (1997) 7 Tas R 35.
146. Other circumstances may also qualify the promised reward: see Guimelli v Guimelli (1999) 161 ALR 473.
147. Ademption may not apply to estoppel: see Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029.
148. See Nealon v Public Trustee (1949) NZLR 148 and s 3(3).
149. Collier Cambus dec'd (1994) NZFLR 520, although the New Zealand Law Reform Commission have recommended that the court should be able to do so where the testator has undervalued the services (see para 42 NZLC R39).
150. Eg not a random and casual remark: Public Trustee v Blick (1973) NZLR 301.
151. Eg the duration and nature of the services as well as the needs of the testator: see earlier discussion on the meaning of services under the statute.
152. Where the services have no economic exchange there is an accepted lack of precision: see Wright v Holland (1995) NZFLR 951 at 959.
153. Although the Privy Council has indicated that the reward promised should be ‘not be lightly departed from’ (see Re Welch (1990) 3 NZLR 1 at 7) the courts have frequently done so.
154. Where the estate is sizeable the value of the work or services appears less significant: see Re Townley (1982) 2 NZLR 87.
155. See eg Re Archer (1990) 3 NZLR 737 at 747.
156. Some judges justify their awards by reference to other decisions: see eg Potter J in Re Dedden dec'd (1989) NZFLR 869 and Robinson J in Vaney v Bright (1993) NZFLR 761.
157. (1985) 2 NZLR 862.
158. (1985) 2 NZLR 862 at 666.
159. (1991) 1 NZLR 98.
160. Claims should be brought within a year of the grant, although this period may be extended with leave of the court provided that the administration of the estate has not been completed: see s 6 and Lilley v Public Trustee (1981) AC 839.
161. The same reluctance is found in the failure to recognise the value of domestic services in the context of the ownership of the matrimonial home.
162. In 1995 the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act was passed giving carers a right to an assessment by the local authority of their needs and in February 1999 the Department of Health published Caring About Carers: A National Strategy for Carers: see http://www.doh.gov.uk/carers.htm.