IN THE ____ COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
________ REGISTRY
Case No. ______________
BETWEEN [ENTER NAME]
[ENTER ADDRESS]
[ENTER NAME]
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiffs
AND Donald James Riden
33 Wilton Road, Wadestown
Amy Louise Stoks
33 Wilton Road, Wadestown
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Filed by: [ENTER NAME AND ADDRESS]
2
MAY IT PLEASE THIS COURT:
We, the Plaintiffs state as follows:
The parties
1. Plaintiff [ENTER NAME], is a resident of [ENTER ADDRESS].
2. Plaintiff [ENTER NAME], is a resident of [ENTER ADDRESS].
3. Defendant James Riden is a Consultant and lives at 33 Wilton Road, Wadestown
(hereinafter “Riden”).
4. Defendant Amy Louise Stoks is James Riden’s partner, and lives with him at 33 Wilton
Road, Wadestown (hereinafter “Stok”)..
Background to Cause of action
5. This matter concerns the estate of Barbara Anne Doornekamp-Wellman’s (hereinafter
BADW).
6. The Plaintiffs were BADW’s private care support persons from 2008/2009 until
September 23, 2019.
7. On or about September 3, 2019, BADW was admitted into Wellington Hospital with a
cold temperature. Consequently, on or about September 18, 2019 BADW was assessed to
have lost capacity
8. On or about November 15, 2019, Mr Peter Crellan Kelly, BADW’s nephew (hereinafter
“Kelly”), was appointed as a Property Manager and Welfare Guardian.
9. On or about December 12, 2019, Kelly filed a "WITHOUT NOTICE" application for a
testamentary disposition Order.
10. On or about April 15, 2020 the Family Court approved a draft will to be filed on behalf of
BADW
3
11. Defendant Riden and Kelly are long-time friends. Therefore, Kelly allegedly had Riden
and Stok sign the draft will as witnesses on 12 May 2020, when New Zealand was still at
alert level 3 in the COVID-19 pandemic.
12. Kelly allegedly visited the Defendants to have them sign the Will. He therefore failed to
observe level 3 guidelines and interacted with people outside of his bubble.
13. On or about the Family Court approved the PPPR "2020-Will"
14. On or about January 8, 2021, BADW passed away.
15. On or about March 5, 2021, Probate was granted and Kelly was made Executor of the
Estate of BADW.
16. Upon receiving the "2020-Will" from Probate, Plaintiffs noticed that on the face of it, the
Will aroused suspicions about the Defendants’ signatures.
Cause of action
17. The "2020-Will" does not comply with the formal requirements for wills as set out in
Section 11 4(a}(b} Wills Act 2007. According to Section 4(a) of the Wills Act, two
witnesses “must be together in the will-maker’s presence…” Section 4(b) further provides
that each witness must “sign the document in the will-maker’s presence.” It is Plaintiffs
contention that RIDEN’s signature on the propounded will is not his signature.
18. Plaintiffs further allege that the two witnesses did not sign the will in front of Kelly and
that Riden and Stok’s signatures were added later. Besides, the two signatures on the Will
are very similar.
19. Plaintiffs conducted a Companies Office Registry and found that Amy Stoks is a
shareholder and director of Affinity UX Limited. Her signature appears to match the same
signature on the 2020 Will. Plaintiffs further observed that it is likely that her handwriting
populates her details and Riden’s details in the Will.
4
20. Plaintiffs search also revealed Riden’s signature on copies of Companies Office
shareholder consent and director consent forms for Feature Creep Limited. Plaintiffs
noted that the signatures on the said documents were considerably different from the
signature under his name on the Will as a witness.
21. Plaintiffs have engaged a handwriting expert, Linda Morrell, who has indicated that she
will need to visit the High Court to observe an original copy of the Will and will want to
analyse a sample of Riden’s signatures in his current passport and other company
documents and bank card signatures. Plaintiffs further intend to present Stoks’ signatures
and handwriting as evidence as well, as her handwriting will need to be ruled out from
Riden’s signature.
22. On or about May 13, 2021 Riden swore an Affidavit whose date of signing is the date on
the "2020-Will" (May 12, 2020). He further stated Will was signed in the garden, where
the parties maintained the one meter social distance requirement.
23. Kelly also filed an Affidavit on or about July 1, 2021. Further, on or about November 8,
2021, Kelly sent Plaintiffs a link to a DropBox with copies of documents listed in the July
1, 2021 Affidavit. In the Affidavit, Kelly states that on or about April 19, 2020, he
requested Riden whether he (Riden) would witness a will. Riden responded by scheduling
a meeting the next day on April 20, 2022. This contradicts Riden’s previous assertion
(under oath), that the 2020 Will was signed on May 12, 2022. Notably, there is a three
weeks’ difference between April 20, 2020 and May 12, 2020.
24. Kelly’s Affidavit further showed Also Kelly’s Affidavit shows that a different place of
signing from the one alleged by Rider. Specifically, Kelly stated that the witnesses were
on the other side of a pane of glass at the time of signing. This contradicts Rider’s
assertions (under oath) that the parties were in the garden, and kept one meter apart.
5
25. It is therefore not clear when the 2020-Will was signed and where it was signed. Also,
since only the Witness Page was printed, the 2020-Will was not executed lawfully.
26. Lastly, Kelly did not finalize the signing of the "2020-Will" in a reputable Law Firm
Office. It is clear that the 2020 Will was a copy and paste.
Particulars of damage(s)
27. As a result of the foregoing, RIDEN and STOKS have created an ‘unjustified
disadvantage’ to the Plaintiffs. First, Plaintiffs have been disadvantaged following the
Defendants’ reluctance to comply with requests for the authenticity of their signatures.
28. Next, by the Defendants’ asserting the validity of the 2020 Will, Plaintiffs have been
denied a chance to prove to the Court that there was a promissory note under the "2012-
Will". The 2012 Will was a signed document containing a written promise to pay a stated
sum to a specified person or the bearer at a specified date or on demand if the alleged
breach has not occurred.
Request for Relief
20. Plaintiffs seek damages from RIDEN and STOKS resulting from the loss of a
substantial chance to present the Plaintiffs seeking a remedy equivalent to what was stated on
the "2012- Will" twenty, 20%
Dated: _________, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
_____________________
[ENTER NAME]
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )