Re-hearing of Family Protection claim — moral duty — division of estate — disclosure of documents — George v Blomfield [2016] NZFC 5637 — Williams v Aucutt [2002] NZLR 479 — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2002] 2 NZLR 650 — Henry v Henry [2007] NZCA 42. The court re-heard a claim made under the Family Protection Act as it had been remitted back to the Family Court by the High Court following the making of discovery orders. The applicant, as a result of the distribution of the will, owed $115,322.50 as a share of debt that had been assigned to him. The court noted that the orders for discovery had made facts clear that were not available during the first hearing, including who beneficiaries of trusts were, power that individuals had over the assets of trusts and the understanding that the will-maker had when forgiving debts as part of that will. The court found that the will-maker had failed to provide adequately for the applicant with reference to the significant provision made for one of the other children which was described by the court as being an imbalance that was too great and demanded redress. The considerations that the will-maker had taken into account when depriving the applicant in the way that he had did not justify the unequal provision. The court considered that an appropriate redress was to discharge the loan owed by the applicant, and awarded him half of the value in shares which represented approximately 9.2 per cent of the estate. Judgment Date: 21 September 2017.