Application for remuneration — promise of testamentary provision — reliance on promise — service — reasonable provision from estate — quantum of award — costs — Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, ss 2 & 3 — Administration Act 1969 — Family Protection Act 1955 — Matrimonial Property Act 1976 — Samuels v Athenson [2009] NZCA 556 — Williams v Alcutt [2002] NZLR 479 (CA) — Re Rough [1976] 1 NZLR 604 — Re Sellars (Deceased) [1996] NZFLR 971 — Re Coyne [2005] NZFLR 678 — Re Welsh [1990] 3 NZLR 1 (PC) — Re Collier-Cambus (Deceased) [1994] NZFLR 520 — Bill Patterson Law of Family Protection and Testamentary Promises (4th ed Lexis Nexis 2013). The applicants sought an order for remuneration from the estate of their deceased father's late wife, for work done under promise of testamentary provision. Upon his death, the applicants' father's assets had all transferred to his wife (the deceased). She, on multiple occasions, promised the applicants they would receive their father's home upon her death. However, her will made no provision for the applicants and was distributed to her two surviving children (the respondents) and three grandchildren. The applicants relied on s 3 of the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act (the Act) and needed to show, on the balance of probabilities that there was a promise, a service was performed, there was a link between the promise and the service, and that reasonable provision had not been made from the estate. Based on the applicants' evidence, the Judge was satisfied that the deceased had promised that the applicants would receive their father's assets. On reliance of this promise, the applicants had not made any claim under the Family Protection Act. The forbearance to pursue a claim can amount to a service as expressly recognised in Re Sellars (Deceased) and Re Coyne. As the applicants received nothing from the estate, all four requirements under the Act were satisfied. The Judge next had to determine the quantum of the award. Case law provides that an award cannot exceed the value of what was promised and it must be reasonable. Given the value of their father's assets, the size of the estate, and the deceased's children, the three claimants were jointly awarded $100,000. Judgment Date: 7 November 2019.