The High Court has awarded a rest home indemnity costs against the son (and former executor) of a former client, finding that the son's claims that the rest home contributed to his father's death were unsubstantiated, inflammatory, and resulted in unnecessary cost for the rest home.

The Court found that the son's claims "were based (initially) on speculation and (later) on relatively flimsy evidence" and that the evidence "went nowhere near creating a foundation for the serious allegation that the standard of the [rest home's] care had caused [his father's] death". The Court also noted that the allegations made by the son were never relevant to the original application by the rest home to have him removed as executor of his father's estate on grounds of conflict of interest, but that "the nature of [the allegation] necessarily required [the rest home] to respond and, in doing so, to incur costs far in excess of those that one would ordinarily expect to enforce a debt of just over $50,000". Bupa Care Services NZ Limited v Gillibrand [2013] NZHC 3067