Rimmer v Wilton

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 97/2025
[2025] NZSC 150

BETWEEN	NIGEL DAVID RIMMER AND NICOLA RIMMER Applicants
AND	CAROLYN MARY WILTON (AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID RIMMER) Respondent

Court:	Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	V T M Bruton KC and L S B Acland for Applicants S P H Elliott for Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Rimmer v Wilton as administrator of the estate of Rimmer [2025] NZCA 374).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Leave to appeal is granted in general terms. However, counsel are asked to focus on the question of the interplay between the agreement to contract out of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 pursuant to s 21 of that Act and Ms Wilton’s entitlements under the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act 1969. In particular, submissions will need to address whether, if Option B under s 61 of the Property (Relationships) Act is elected, the surviving partner may receive their entitlements under a will or on an intestacy while also relying on a s 21 agreement.
If the applicants wish to pursue their application for the appointment of independent counsel they should provide a memorandum to the Court within five working days of the delivery of this judgment. Any response from the respondent should be filed within a further five working days. Counsel for the applicants will need to explain why this is considered necessary given both parties are represented by counsel. It may be, in any event, that there will be applications for intervention and the Court will address those if and when any applications are made.

Solicitors:
Rout Milner Fitchett, Nelson for Applicants
Insight Legal Ltd, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rimmer v Wilton, the applicants, Nigel David Rimmer and Nicola Rimmer, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute concerning the estate of David Rimmer. The respondent, Carolyn Mary Wilton, appeared as the administrator of the estate of David Rimmer. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Justice Ellen France and Justice Kós, was tasked with determining whether to grant the applicants leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicants' appeal. Specifically, the focus was on the interplay between an agreement to contract out of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 under section 21 of that Act and the respondent's entitlements under the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act 1969. The court was particularly interested in whether, if Option B under section 61 of the Property (Relationships) Act was elected, the surviving partner could receive their entitlements under a will or on an intestacy while also relying on a section 21 agreement.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in general terms, directing the parties to focus their submissions on the specified legal question. The court highlighted the importance of addressing whether a surviving partner could simultaneously rely on a section 21 agreement and claim entitlements under the intestacy provisions. Additionally, the court noted the applicants' intention to seek the appointment of independent counsel, requesting a memorandum within five working days of the judgment's delivery. The respondent was given a further five working days to respond, with the court reserving the right to address any potential applications for intervention as they arose.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established