Claiming
fraudulent calumny, Wellington property investor Peter Ngan accused his sister
Helen Young of poisoning his relationship with their half-sibling Tengor Ngan
resulting in Tengor cutting Peter out of his inheritance; a share of Tengor’s
$3.24 million estate.
This is the
first time fraudulent calumny has been claimed in a New Zealand court as
grounds to invalidate a will.
The rules
have been around for over 150 years, requiring proof of deliberate or reckless
behaviour designed to have a ‘natural beneficiary’ left out of, or cut out of,
a will.
In England,
claims of fraudulent calumny have seen a recent revival; mainly unsuccessful.
Expect
numbers of claims to increase as disaffected children of the baby boomer
generation fight over their deceased parents’ riches.
In the New
Zealand High Court, Justice La Hood ruled there was no clear and cogent
evidence to support Helen Young’s claims that brother Peter Ngan was a
fraudster, mismanaging half-sibling Tengor’s properties and cheating Tengor out
of money due.
Helen is a
person quick to make judgements based on a cursory assessment of limited
information and difficult to budge from those judgements once made, Justice La
Hood said.
Her view
that Peter defrauded Tengor is incorrect, but genuinely held, Justice La Hood
ruled.
Being
genuinely mistaken negated any suggestion Helen acted fraudulently in lobbying
her half-sibling Tengor to cut her brother out of his will.
Her brother
Peter was awarded assets from Tengor Ngan’s estate valued at $800,000 on a Law
Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act claim; receiving two flats on Angus Avenue
in Wellington inner city suburb Berhampore which would otherwise have been
inherited by Helen’s children.
Four days
of High Court evidence was taken up detailing the relationship between Tengor
and his half-siblings.
The court
was told Tengor came to New Zealand as a refugee from China in the 1940s,
fleeing ahead of invading Japanese forces.
He never
married. He had no children.
He lived a
very frugal life, building up a suite of rental properties.
When Tengor
was in his early seventies, he approached half-brother Peter to take over
management of his flats. Peter, with his
spouse, was also a residential landlord with some of his flats in the same
block as Tengor’s.
The High
Court was told of an informal hand-shake deal around 2005 in which Peter would
manage Tengor’s flats for a fifty/fifty share of net rentals with Peter to
inherit a ‘fair share’ of Tengor’s assets on death.
Tengor has
five half-siblings. As Tengor aged,
there was growing interest amongst these half-siblings over potential
inheritances from child-less Tengor.
Evidence
was given of Helen’s growing belief that Peter was cheating Tengor of his
agreed half-share of rentals.
Armed with
some of Peter’s accounting records, she contacted both Tengor and Tengor’s
solicitor mounting a concentrated campaign alleging fraud by Peter.
Peter’s
protestations to the contrary were not helped by Peter failing to provide
detailed monthly accounting summaries to Tengor and his habit of deducting sums
for personal expenses incurred on Tengor’s behalf.
These loose
accounting procedures led to apparent misunderstandings on Helen’s part over
the distinction between business expenses and personal expenses, plus what was
valid capital expenditure, Justice La Hood ruled.
The court
was told of Tengor’s bank account being temporarily frozen on allegations of
elder abuse and complaints of theft made to the police. Police declined to prosecute.
On Tengor’s
death in 2024 at age 94, Peter learnt he was not a beneficiary.
This had
been foreshadowed by an emotional meeting between the two in August 2021 in
which Tengor, relying on Helen’s comments, accused Peter of dishonesty.
At various
times, both Helen and Peter lobbied Tengor seeking to direct changes to his
will, the court was told.
In October
2021, Tengor signed what became his final will.
Peter was
left nothing.
Two flats
which were bequeathed to Peter in an earlier will were instead gifted to
Helen’s two children.
These two
flats were subsequently awarded to Peter as compensation on his successful Law
Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act claim.
Justice La
Hood ruled the seventeen years’ service Peter provided to his half-brother as
both professional and personal services followed on from the 2005 promise he
would receive in return a ‘fair share’ of Tengor’s estate.
Value of
the two flats he receives amounts to a little less than a quarter of total
estate value.
Lowe v. Ngan
– High Court (11.03.26)
26.098