Interim spousal maintenance — deceased spouse — reasonable needs — legal costs — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 82 & 182 — Family Protection Act 1955 — Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 — Thakurdas v Wadsworth (2018) NZHC 1106 — Langridge v Langridge [1987] 2 NZLR 554 — Slater v Slater [1983] NZLR 166. The applicant applied for an order that the administrators of the estate of his late de facto partner, Ms Eady, be directed to pay him interim spousal maintenance. The applicant and the respondents (who were Ms Eady's children) were embroiled in a bitter and complicated legal dispute over Ms Eady's property and its distribution after her death. There was a lack of case law in this area where the respondents were also executors. For this reason the respondents submitted the Court did not have jurisdiction to make an order. The Judge rejected this argument, stating the Family Proceedings Act clearly gave the Court this power and to limit its ability to make interim spousal maintenance orders would contradict the intention of Parliament and cause hardship for people in unjust situations. The applicant submitted he needed interim spousal maintenance as he could not meet his own reasonable needs. He also applied for a contribution towards his legal costs. The basis of the respondents' argument was that the applicant's financial situation was his own fault, he should have saved his own money and he was aware Ms Eady was ill. They also submitted he could not prove there was a causal link between the end of his relationship and his inability to meet his reasonable needs. They denied the estate should contribute towards the applicant's legal costs as his claims were without any merit. The applicant provided a budget of his needs and income, which was limited as he was 78. There was a clear shortfall and a downgrade in the lifestyle he had enjoyed while with Ms Eady. Their relationship lasted 30 years and the applicant was forced into retirement when his business failed. Shortly after his partner's death, the respondents evicted the applicant from the property he had lived in with his partner for over 24 years. It was clear the sudden and traumatic end of the relationship directly caused the applicant's inability to meet his reasonable needs. He had been forced to give up his independence and move in with his daughter. The Judge ordered the estate to pay interim spousal maintenance to the applicant, but at a lower amount than submitted in his budget. It was ordered a one off payment of $2000 be made to allow the applicant to pay a bond. The Judge also stated there was no evidence that the applicant's legal claims were without merit. There was some evidence the dispute had been drawn out because of the respondents' behaviour. The applicant was to receive $1000 per week to go towards his legal costs for the duration of the interim order. Judgment Date: 13 September 2018.