Application for further provision — breach of moral duty — “maintenance” — “support” — leaky home — Family Proceedings Act 1955, s 4 — Evidence Act 2006, s 7 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 158 — Innes v Innes [2023] NZFC 6755 — Williams v Aucutt [2002] 2 NZLR 479 — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2002] 2 NZLR 650 — Henry v Henry [2007] NZCA 42 — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310 — Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 — O’Neill v O’Neill [2021] NZCA 585 — Wells v Wells [2006] NZFLR 870 — Swenson v Lawton [2022] NZHC 3544 — Cresswell v Roberts [2022] NZHC 1265 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — Brosnahan v Meo [2021] NZHC 79 — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310 — Hamilton v Hamilton [2003] NZFLR 883 — Re Williams [2004] 2 NZLR 132 — Fearon v Public Trust HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-4465, 24 November 2008. The testator in the case had died and left his estate to be divided equally between his nine children. One of the children, the applicant, sought further provision from the estate. She argued that her father had breached his moral duty to her by ordering equal division of his estate. The applicant submitted that she had helped her parents to resolve weathertightness issues with their house, that she had cared for both of her parents in their old age, and that she had helped manage properties owned by a family trust. Therefore, she argued, she should get a greater share of the estate than her siblings. One of the applicant's siblings supported the application, and the rest of them opposed it. The other siblings agreed that the applicant had done work on the house and had cared for their parents, but argued that the applicant was minimising the contributions that they had also made to their parents' lives and business ventures. For instance, the older siblings had undertaken hard and unpaid physical labour to help the testator to maintain his properties. The Court observed that the work done by the older siblings had helped the testator to build up the asset base that he had enjoyed later in life. The applicant could not justify her arguments that the work that she had done for her parents was of greater value. The testator had had legal advice and would have given the applicant extra recognition if he thought that she deserved it. The Court found that the testator had not breached his moral duty to the applicant. The applicant stood to inherit a considerable sum from the estate, so there was no failure to provide for her maintenance and support. The application was dismissed. Judgment Date: 11 April 2024 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *