Application for leave — substantive orders — recognition award — inter-vivos support — serious injustice — needy claimants — breach of moral duty — Family Protection Act 1955, s 4 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2G, 25 & 88 — Public Trust v Whyman [2005] 2 NZLR 696 — Shepherd v Shepherd [2009] NZFLR 226 (HC) — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 (CA) — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479. This was an application by the executor of the deceased's estate for leave to bring a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 ("PRA"), and an application for provision under the Family Protection Act 1955 ("FPA") by the deceased's adult children. The deceased had made bequests of $30,000 for each of the five children in his will; however, on his death, his assets passed on to his second wife by survivorship and the bequests failed. There was no mechanism to pay those legacies to the children without granting leave. Under s 88(2) of the PRA, leave to apply for division of property will be granted where refusing to grant leave would result in serious injustice. Case law supports the proposition that where an applicant has a reasonably arguable family protection claim, it would be a serious injustice to refuse leave. The issue of provision under the FPA therefore needed to be assessed, against the backdrop of the children's individual needs (their own families, medical needs, incomes and debts), the support from the deceased during their lifetimes and the amount provided for them in the will. For all but one child the $30,000 legacies were deemed insufficient to meet their current needs. The Judge concluded that 50 per cent of the estate should be distributed to the widow and the other 50 per cent to the four children with needs. This was further divided into 8 per cent provisions for three of the children; the fourth child, who was assessed as having the highest needs, was awarded 26 per cent. An order was also made entitling the deceased's estate $122,600 as its share of the relationship property available for division. The PRA leave was granted, and counsel directed to confer as to the form of an order for sealing. Given the order declaring the estate's entitlement to the relationship property it was possible that the FPA claims could be met from the funds held by the executor, but leave was granted to apply to the Court for further directions if required. Judgment Date: 18 May 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *