Last Chance to Change My Will

Is a will valid when instructions have been given, the will has been prepared, reviewed and approved, but not signed? Although an unsigned document can be a will, recently the Court of Appeal decided an unsigned will was not valid because the circumstances suggested the will-maker did not have capacity and was planning to take another step before signing the will.

This article reviews the Court of Appeal decision Marshall v Singleton [2020] NZCA 450, a case about James (86), who was hospitalised and diagnosed with terminal cancer in December 2017, and his four children.

Due to James’ illness his four children, Peter, Christine, Ann, and Susan, organise a roster to care for him.  Ann and Susan withdraw from the roster due to a falling out in their relationship with the other siblings.  James is upset and in his dying days only Peter and Christine are there to care for him.  James reviews his 2015 will which left his estate in equal shares to his four children and asks Peter to prepare a new will. On 30 December 2017, James explains to Peter how he wants to divide assets – one-third of his home equally to Ann and Susan, two-thirds of his home equally to Peter and Christine, and his remaining assets equally to Peter and Christine.  Due to James’ illness, Peter types up a will for him which was read by James on 3 January 2018.  Allegedly James audibly confirmed that the will outlines his intentions, but he does not sign the will.  James says he wants to write a letter explaining the new will to Ann and Susan.  James passes away on 11 January 2018 before signing the will or writing the letter.

Peter applies to the High Court for Letters of Administration annexing the unsigned will.  Ann and Susan oppose the application on the grounds that James, lacking testamentary capacity and being extremely ill, could not have properly expressed his intentions or signed a will.  Dr Jane Casey, consultant psychiatrist specialising in old age psychiatry, gives expert evidence saying that on the balance of probabilities James did not have capacity, even though James’ treating doctor said that he did.  The High Court finds in favour of Ann and Susan, but Peter appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2020.

Test of Capacity

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision for two reasons.  Firstly, Dr Casey said that James was very unwell, on strong medication and had some incidents of confusion recorded in his file, so he most likely did not have the required mental capacity.  Secondly, James wanted to explain the new will in a letter to Ann and Susan before signing it, which he never did.

There is a well-established test for testamentary capacity dating back to an 1870 English case (confirmed in a New Zealand Court of Appeal case, Woodward v Smith [2009] NZCA 449) setting out what the Court looks at when deciding if an unsigned will is valid.

Sickness can be challenging, however, this does not mean that the person necessarily lacks capacity to prepare or sign a will.  The Court will assess whether the will-maker:

  • Has intellectual and moral faculties;
  • Understands the nature and effect of the will, and the extent of their property;
  • Comprehends and appreciates the potential claims to their assets;
  • Has the strength to comprehend making a will;
  • Understands the contents of the will;
  • Is free of any mental disorder influencing their affections, moral compass or natural faculties, with no delusion or insanity.

Other principles the Court considers are:

  • Evidence of an “unsound mind” by lack of organisation, physical weakness or the effect of old age;
  • The will-maker must have enough intelligence to understand and appreciate the will-making considerations. Full mental strength is not required;
  • Extreme physical weakness is not a bar to making a final will, even though it could prevent other business (e.g. attending a board meeting);
  • Whether they have put thought into making the will. Someone who has thought about their will for a long time may find it easier to make one in physically bad health than someone who is new to it;
  • A strong memory is not required;
  • Less than peak mental capacity is acceptable, provided a rational, fair and just will can be made.

If you would like to discuss wills, will validity or testamentary capacity further, please do not hesitate to get in contact with one of our solicitors.

If you would like further information, please contact Daniel Shore on 07 958 7477.

Director Duties When a Company is Faced with Insolvency

The recent decision of Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100 is especially relevant for company directors given the present financial uncertainties caused by COVID-19.  The case summarises director duties under the Companies Act 1993 (“the Act”) for companies facing insolvency.

In short, directors need to be extremely careful when their company is faced with liquidation. Where a company becomes insolvent, directors should look to the formal and informal alternatives to liquidation contained in the Act.  If those mechanisms fail, then generally the only other option is liquidation.

Choosing to continue trading while insolvent will expose directors to significant personal risk, even if directors have taken professional advice to continue trading.  If there is no reasonable prospect of returning to solvency, it will make no difference if directors honestly think that some of the creditors will be better off by continuing to trade.

It is noted that the Court did not decide whether it is legitimate for a business suffering temporary liquidity issues to continue trading in the hope of salvage and if so, for how long.

History

Mr Cooper was the sole director of Debut Homes Limited (“Debut”).  Debut was a residential property developer and had been balance sheet insolvent since 2009.  Mr Cooper made the difficult decision to wind down the company in 2012.

Mr Cooper was advised that completing and selling existing company projects would create a surplus of $170,000 to repay secured creditors.  Mr Cooper was also advised that completing those projects would result in GST payable of over $300,000.  No provision was made for the GST.

Debut completed and sold its remaining projects the following year.  In doing so, various debts were incurred and paid, both with secured creditors financing the projects, and unsecured trade creditors supplying materials and labour.  Mr Cooper focused on the position of those creditors, while neglecting to pay the GST payable on the sale of the properties.

For a period of approximately 18 months leading up to completion of the development work on the properties, Mr Cooper worked full-time for Debut and received no salary.

When the IRD placed Debut into liquidation in March 2014, there was money owing to the IRD, trade creditors, and Mr Cooper’s family trust.  Debut’s liquidators brought proceedings against Mr Cooper for a breach of director duties.

In the High Court Mr Cooper was found to be in breach of sections 131, 135, and 136 of the Act.  Mr Cooper was ordered to pay $280,000 compensation to the company under section 301 of the Act.  The High Court also rejected a section 138 defence that he was entitled to rely upon professional advice that he had taken at the time.  The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying that Mr Cooper had made a “perfectly sensible business decision”.  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision and re-instated the High Court decision.

Statutory Considerations

The Court considered the following director duties:

  • Section 131: The duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company;
  • Section 135: The duty to avoid “reckless trading”;
  • Section 136: The duty not to agree to the company incurring an obligation unless the director believes on reasonable grounds that the company will be able to perform the obligation when due.

The Court rejected a section 138 defence (directors may rely upon professional or expert advice), finding that the professional advice received was too general in nature to act as a proper defence.

Section 301, which governs consequences for a breach of the Act, was also discussed.  When a company is placed into liquidation, section 301 of the Act empowers a Court to order that director to contribute such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation as the Court thinks fit.

Court Analysis of Director Duties

Section 131 – Directors to act in good faith

Mr Cooper submitted that the steps he had taken improved the overall asset base of Debut and minimised the ultimate loss to creditors as a whole.

The Court noted that the section 131 test is subjective.  However, section 131(b) also requires directors to assess the interests of all creditors, not just some.  The Court held that Mr Cooper had failed to consider the interests of the IRD by not paying Debut’s GST obligations.

In effect, Inland Revenue (and thus the taxpayer) was being used as an involuntary bank.  Mr Cooper had subsequently breached section 131.

Section 135 – Acting in a manner likely to cause substantial risk to the company

Mr Cooper argued that completing the remaining company projects was a sensible business decision that had the potential of providing higher returns than immediate liquidation would have done.  Mr Cooper also did not consider Debut’s financial position as salvageable.

The Court noted that other formal and informal insolvency mechanisms were available under the Act to increase returns to creditors.  Had these not been available, the only proper course was liquidation.

The Court held that by continuing to trade and knowing that by continuing to trade would result in a shortfall, is a clear breach of section 135.

Section 136 – Incurring only obligations that the company can perform

Mr Cooper’s course of action effectively gave secured creditors (one of which was Mr Cooper’s own family trust) a higher rate of return at the expense of incurring other liabilities which would not be paid (GST).

The Court held this was a clear misinterpretation of section 136 by Mr Cooper.  The company was clearly not going to be able to perform its GST obligations, and it was not legitimate to “rob Peter to pay Paul”.

Key Learnings

If a company reaches the point where continued trading will clearly result in a shortfall to creditors and the company is not salvageable, then continued trading will be in breach of section 135 of the Act.

A breach will occur whether or not continued trading is projected to result in higher returns to some of the creditors than would be the case if the company had been immediately placed into liquidation, and whether or not any overall deficit was projected to be reduced.

There will be a breach of section 136 of the Act if directors agree to debts being incurred where there are no reasonable grounds to believe the company will be able to perform its obligations when they fall due.

When faced with insolvency, there will be no breach of section 131 if a director honestly believed it was acting in the best interests of the company.  However, there will be a breach of section 131 if a director failed to consider the interests of all creditors.

The emphasis is that at all times (including where a company is insolvent) directors must comply with their duties under the Act.

Daniel acknowledges the assistance of Andrew Hong in preparing this article.

Daniel is a Director and leads our Dispute Resolution Team. He can be contacted on 07 958 7477.

Contact us

HAMILTON OFFICE

P. 07 838 2079

E. reception@mccawlewis.co.nz

Level 6, 586 Victoria Street
Hamilton 3204
New Zealand

TE KŪITI OFFICE

P. 07 878 8036

E. reception@mccawlewis.co.nz

36 Taupiri Street
Te Kūiti 3910
New Zealand