Further provision from estate — breach of moral duty — Family Protection Act 1955 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 (HC) — Flathaug v Weaver [2003] NZFLR 730 (CA) — P v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2008] NZFLR 933 — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479 (CA) — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 — Cartwright v Joseph [2018] NZHC 2383 — Warboys v Jones [2004] NZFLR 360 (HC) — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310. The applicant applied under the Family Protection Act for further provision from her father's (the testator) estate. The father had remarried several times, and moved from Holland to New Zealand with his second wife when the applicant, who remained living in Holland, was a child. He married his last wife a week prior to his death. He had created several different wills during his lifetime, the final one just prior to his death which bequeathed some antiques, paintings and family medals to the applicant. The testator's wife received the remaining personal and household effects, a motor vehicle, and a payment of $500,000 made under a relationship property agreement, as well as the apartment owned by the testator. The residue of the estate was to be held for the applicant's two children upon them attaining the age of 21 years. The issues for determination were whether the testator had breached his moral duty to the applicant; if so, what provision should be made; and the source of that provision. In considering the moral duty element, the Court considered the size of the estate, the relationship between the applicant and the testator, and where the primary responsibility for the state of that relationship lay, as well as the applicant's financial circumstances. The value of the estate was around $3.2 million, comprising the chattels, apartment, bank funds, motor vehicle and watch. The relationship between the testator and the applicant was fraught, in large part due to the testator's move to New Zealand when the applicant was a child. There were some visits in both countries, with gaps in between. The Judge found that the responsibility for maintaining the relationship lay primarily with the testator. The applicant was living within her means and did not have an extravagant lifestyle. The Judge considered that the testator had breached his moral duty to the applicant, and that a further provision from the estate was justified. The Judge directed that two clauses in the final will stand, that the residue of the estate be divided between the applicant and her two daughters, and that all other provisions of the estate remain in place. Judgment Date: 25 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *