The golden rule for Wills: lessons from Gorringe v Pointon

A recent Supreme Court decision has delivered one of the most important estate planning lessons New Zealand families have seen in years. The case, Rimmer v Wilton [2026] NZSC 122, highlights a problem that many people do not realise exists: a relationship property agreement and an estate plan are not separate exercises. If they are not carefully co-ordinated, the consequences can be expensive, unexpected, and deeply divisive for families. For families, particularly those in second relationships, blended families, farming businesses, family trusts, and multi-generational enterprises, the decision is a timely reminder that estate planning should never be treated as a “set and forget” exercise. The dispute David Rimmer died without a Will. He was survived by his long-term de facto partner, Carolyn Wilton, and two adult children from a previous relationship. Earlier in their relationship, Mr Rimmer and Ms Wilton had entered into a contracting out agreement, often called a pre-nuptial agreement, under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Ms Wilton could receive both: the benefits provided by the contracting out agreement; and additional benefits available under New Zealand’s intestacy rules because Mr Rimmer had died without a Will. The Court of Appeal said yes. However, the Supreme Court has now overturned that decision and concluded that, on the wording of the agreement, Ms Wilton had effectively contracted out of the right to claim further entitlement from the estate. While the legal reasoning is important and acknowledged by the Supreme Court as a complex area of the law, the practical consequences are much more significant. The real issue was not the agreement, it was the absence of an estate plan. For many years New Zealand lawyers have treated relationship property planning and estate planning as related but distinct disciplines, assuming: A contracting out agreement answers one question: “What happens to our property if the relationship ends?” A Will answers another: “What happens to my assets when I die?” The problem is that many clients assume those documents naturally work together. Often they do not. The Supreme Court decision demonstrates that they are inseparable. When there is no Will, or when a Will has not been reviewed after a contracting out agreement is signed, gaps emerge. Those gaps create uncertainty. Uncertainty creates litigation. Litigation consumes estates. Why this matters for families Individual asset bases and situations are more complex than ever. Often we see factors such as family-owned businesses, orchards, investment properties, trusts, and blended families which impact succession planning. Many clients enter second or later relationships with substantial assets and children from previous relationships. Further, relationships amongst family can become strained. There are often competing objectives: protecting children from an earlier relationship; providing security for a new partner; preserving family assets; maintaining fairness between beneficiaries; and reducing the likelihood of future disputes. A contracting out agreement is frequently part of the solution. If the corresponding estate planning is missing, outdated or inconsistent, the intended outcomes can quickly unravel. Common mistakes Having a contracting out agreement but no Will This was the central issue in Rimmer. Many people invest considerable time and money negotiating a contracting out agreement but never complete the corresponding estate planning. The result is that default statutory rules end up deciding how assets pass on death. Those rules may bear little resemblance to what either partner actually intended. Failing to review documents together A Will drafted 10 years ago may make little sense after: a new relationship; marriage; separation; acquisition of significant assets; establishment of a trust; or signing a contracting out agreement. Assuming separation automatically fixes everything Many people are surprised to discover that separation does not necessarily solve estate planning issues. In New Zealand, separation alone does not automatically revoke a Will. Former partners can still feature in estate planning structures long after relationships have ended. That creates obvious risks where documents have not been reviewed. Overlooking business and trust structures Ownership arrangements, shareholder agreements, trusts, partnership arrangements, and succession plans all interact with personal estate planning. A Will that ignores those arrangements can produce unintended consequences. What should people do now? The answer is not necessarily to rush out and sign new documents. People should consider: whether they have a current Will; whether they have a contracting out agreement; whether the two documents work together; whether asset ownership has changed; whether there are children from previous relationships; whether trusts remain fit for purpose; and whether executors and trustees remain appropriate appointments. Most importantly, people should ensure that each document reflects a cohesive succession strategy. A broader lesson The significance of Rimmer v Wilton extends well beyond the parties involved. The case demonstrates that estate planning is no longer simply about drafting a Will. Modern families have increasingly complex relationships, assets, and expectations. The most successful estate plans are those that integrate relationship property planning, Wills, trusts, business succession and beneficiary expectations into a unified plan, and, they are updated regularly. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on 4 September 2026, please contact us to ensure that your existing estate plan involving a contracting out agreement remains suitable.

Many New Zealanders now have assets, family members, or business interests overseas making estate planning and succession planning increasingly complex. You may own a holiday home in Australia, have investments in the United States, be entitled to an inheritance from the United Kingdom, or have children living in different countries. While these international connections are increasingly common, they can create complications when someone dies. The good news is that most issues can be managed with early advice and co-ordination across countries and legal advisors. Addressing these matters in advance is usually far less costly than dealing with the legal consequences after death. What is cross-jurisdictional estate planning? Cross-jurisdictional estate planning involves creating an estate plan and Will structure that works across more than one country. This may include: Overseas property and investment portfolios; Australian, UK, US, and other foreign assets; International families and beneficiaries; Foreign trusts or business structures; Relocation to or from New Zealand; Succession planning for internationally held wealth. Every country has its own laws governing Wills, estates, taxes, trusts, and property ownership. A Will that works perfectly in New Zealand may create unexpected difficulties overseas. What can go wrong? Common problems include: Delays in administering overseas assets; Conflicting Wills in different countries; A Will valid in one country is not recognised in another; Additional legal costs; Difficulties obtaining probate or resealing a grant in other (multiple) jurisdictions; Assets passing in a way that was never intended; Family disputes caused by unclear arrangements. In some cases, a person may have a valid New Zealand Will, but their overseas assets cannot be dealt with efficiently because local legal requirements have not been considered. Can one Will cover assets in multiple countries? Sometimes. For some people, a single carefully drafted Will is sufficient. For others, separate Wills for different jurisdictions may be appropriate. The answer depends on factors such as: The countries involved; The type and value of the assets; Whether trusts or companies are involved; Family circumstances; The likelihood of future relocation. The key issue is ensuring the documents work together. Multiple Wills that are not properly co-ordinated can create more problems than they solve. When should you review your estate plan? One of the most common mistakes is waiting until after a move overseas to review an estate plan. A relocation can affect existing Wills, trust structures, powers of attorney, and succession arrangements. Reviewing these matters before moving can avoid significant cost and complexity later. Coordinating legal advice across jurisdictions Cross-border estates often require input from advisers in more than one country. The objective is not to create more documents, but to ensure all aspects of the estate plan operate together efficiently. With the right planning, overseas assets can usually be administered more smoothly, costs can often be reduced, and families can avoid unnecessary stress at an already difficult time. If you own overseas assets, have family living abroad, or expect an overseas inheritance, it is worth reviewing your estate planning arrangements to ensure your Will and estate administration plans remain effective across jurisdictions.

A Will is perhaps the most important document you can leave behind to support your loved ones. Why do you need a Will, what happens if you pass without a Will, and how best should you prepare your Will for your circumstances? September is Wills Month. Holland Beckett offers a free Simple Will, or a 20% discount on a Complex Will, if you leave a gift to charity in your Will in September. Download our Wills Month information pack. Speak to the Holland Beckett Succession and Estates team about Wills Month and what charity giving options would best suit you. Contact the team on estates@hobec.co.nz or call our offices on 07 578 2199. Get started with our online Will Questionnaire.