Tragic Givealittle legal fight sets precedence

A legal battle over frozen Givealittle donations following the tragic death of young father Kane Watson has reached the High Court, raising serious questions about accountability, donor intent, and the limits of online fundraising platforms in New Zealand.

Givealittle fight: Funds donated after young dad’s death remain frozen, judge says settlement in ‘everyone’s interest’

Contested funds at the centre of a Givealittle page set up after the death of a young dad in a beach tragedy will remain frozen.

But both parties have been told it was in “everyone’s interest” that the matter is resolved promptly.

In a case that is a legal first in New Zealand, Justice Dani Gardiner rejected an application to discharge the freezing order at the Auckland High Court this morning.

The legal fight involves more than $30,000 in funds donated to a Givealittle set up after young dad Kane Watson died.

Watson died in hospital on August 25, two days after a sand dune collapsed on him while he was digging a hole during a family trip to Muriwai Beach.

Shortly before the funds were set to be released by Givealittle for distribution, Watson’s then-pregnant partner Jasmine Cooke successfully sought a freezing order from the High Court.

Her move came following a disagreement over the dispersal of donations from the public, that ultimately led to Cooke – who has two children to Watson – being cut-out of receiving any money.

In Monday’s hearing, Justice Gardiner said that it was in “everyone’s interest” that the case was resolved as quickly “as possible”.

But Justice Gardiner granted Cooke five working days to file a formal notice of opposition on why the order should not be discharged, including her reasons why.

On receipt of the notice, Givealittle page creator Kristalle Tayler and Watson’s sister, Shaquille Thoumine, will then be given a further five working days to respond.

Justice Gardiner said the next steps to try to resolve the legal fight would be a conference with a judge – set down for an hour – where it was hoped parties could “try and make some headway”.

Unless there was a settlement, a full hearing before a judge would then proceed.

Despite more than $300 million being donated to thousands of fundraisers in Givealittle’s history, never before have funds from one of its appeals been frozen on a court order.

NZ Herald

The Daily Blog has previously reported on this case on two separate occasions, raising early concerns about the distribution of Givealittle donations following Kane Watson’s death, and the position of his partner and children in relation to the funds raised. Those earlier reports, which pre-date the High Court proceedings, highlighted the risks inherent in third-party fundraising platforms when disputes arise between family members.

A legal first exposes Givealittle accountability gaps

When TDB did an exclusive on this terrible case, we were threatened with defamation, however the NZ Herald with their huge legal team wrote a story on it which meant the issue could then be reported and discussed more openly.

The manner in which this terrible situation has become toxic between estranged family members in the wake of the tragic death of Kane Watson has highlighted serious issues with Givealittle.

TDB contacted Givealittle about the concerns raised with us by Kane’s widow and this was their response to us:

Givealittle is a neutral online platform for fundraising that allows individuals, schools, and charities to create fundraising pages for a wide variety of causes. 

In the case of this page, which was set up to raise funds for the funeral of Kane Watson by a friend of his sister, the initial donation goal was far exceeded, necessitating an update to donors on how the additional funds will be used.

As per Givealittle’s terms and conditions, where initial fundraising goals and needs are met and exceeded, page owners must provide an update to donors about the use of funds. Givealittle places the update on the page based on instructions and permission from the page owner. The decisions on the distribution of these additional funds (those raised above the original goal) rest with the page owner.

Any further enquiries in relation to the distribution of funds in this case should be directed to the page owner. 

Donor expectations versus platform control

I think the vast majority of those who donated believed the money would go to Kane’s widow and children, the fact that it has become a deeply acrimonious dispute over the money raised would cause many donors to question the safeguards around future Givealittle appeals.

The issue is now in front of the High Court, let’s hope this painful situation can be settled ASAP as Kane’s widow is due to give birth to Kane’s child.

This case is now shaping legal precedent in New Zealand and may influence how future disputes involving online fundraising platforms are handled.

I think Kane’s death generated so much media attention AND so many donations because it was a quintessential dad spending time playing with his kids at the beach and the horror of his family witnessing his death struck a deep chord of sadness with many Kiwis.

What a lonely Christmas they must be facing, alongside the impending birth of Kane’s baby and an unresolved fight over the $30,000 raised.

TDB’s thoughts are with Kane’s widow and her whanau.

We will continue to focus on this issue next year to ensure they get justice.