Breach of duty — adequate provision from will — contracting-out agreement — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 21 — Family Protection Act 1955, ss 3 & 4 — Matthews v Phochai [2020] NZHC 3455 — Gardiner v Boag [1923] NZLR 739 (SC) — Parish v Parish [1924] NZLR 307 (SC) — Re Julso [1975] 2 NZLR 536 (SC) — Public Trustee v Dillon ([1940] 874 (SC) — Williams v Aucott [2000] 2 NZLR 249 (CA) — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2002] 2 NZLR 650 (CA) — Henry v Henry [2007] NZCA 42, [2007] NZFLR 640 — Wylie v Wylie [2003] 23 FRNZ 156 (CA) — Zhang v Guo [2021] NZHC 714 — Fisher on Matrimonial and Relationship Property (2022). The applicant applied for provision from her late partner's will. The applicant and her late partner (the testator) had been in a relationship for seven years, and had signed a contracting-out agreement, which specified what was to happen to their property should they separate or one of them die. Both were in their late 40s at the commencement of their relationship, and each came to the relationship with multiple real estate properties. The testator had not provided for the applicant in his will, instead leaving his entire estate to his adult son from a previous relationship. The Court considered the applicant's position and affidavits of friends of both the applicant and testator as well as the executor. The Court concluded that if the testator had wanted to change his will to provide for the applicant, he would have done so. Courts should only intervene in testamentary cases where there was a clear breach of moral duty. In the present case, the applicant was "not badly off", having a net worth of around $2 million and a good income, good health, and no dependents. The Court dismissed the application. Judgment Date: 1 March 2024.