Reserved judgment — tikanga — mana ōrite — moral duty — disentitling conduct — whakawhanaungatanga — Family Protection Act 1955, ss 4 & 5 — Administration Act 1969, s 77 — Mulford v Mulford [1947] NZLR 837 — Allardice v Allardice (1910) 29 NZLR 959 — Angus v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479 — Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114 — Re Kupa (1996) 15 FRNZ 312 — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 — Marino v Macey [2013] NZHC 2191 — Van Selm v Van Selm [2015] NZFLR 693 — Re Smith (1991) AFLNZ 459 — Re Will of Gilbert (deceased) (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 — Re Worms v Campbell [1953] NZLR 924 — Rippey v Hunt & Ors [2014] NZHC 1964 — L N J v C M T G & Ors FC Rotorua FAM-2010-063-11, 29 August 2011 — Re Meier (deceased) [1976] 1 NZLR 257 — Hoffmann v Hoffmann (1909) 29 NZLR 425 — Re Green (dec’d) [1951] NZLR 135 — Hughes v National Trustees (1979) 23 ALR 321 — Re Dobson [1991] NZFLR 403 — Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812. This was a Family Protection Act claim. The applicant in the proceedings, who was the testator's youngest son, had received nothing from the estate. The testator's will alleged that the applicant had said that he wanted nothing from the estate, and had also assaulted the testator three times. Submissions from one of the applicant's older brothers argued that the applicant's omission from the will breached the concept of mana ōrite; the principle that benefits should be spread equally within a whānau. According to mana ōrite, the applicant and his seven siblings should have been treated equally under the will. The Court observed that tikanga is not mentioned in the Family Protection Act, but that according to a Supreme Court ruling tikanga can and should inform legal decisions when relevant. Therefore the Court found that it had to decide whether the testator should have applied appropriate tikanga when making his will to give effect to his moral duty to his children. Although the applicant did have a criminal record and had assaulted the testator, the Court found that this did not disentitle the applicant from inheriting. A wise and just testator would have taken into account the applicant's traumatised upbringing, which had included his mother dying suddenly on his 13th birthday. Testimony from the applicant's siblings suggested to the Court that the family generally believed in the concept of mana ōrite. However no admissible evidence was presented on the matter, and no previous decision created a precedent. The Court found that it was unable to make a finding that there was a moral duty to act in accordance with tikanga. However the Court did rule that in the circumstances a wise and just testator would have provided for all his children equally. The applicant and his brother, who was also left less in the will than the rest of the testator's children, were both awarded 12.5 per cent of the estate. Costs were reserved. Judgment Date: 24 April 2023