Last will — moral duty — proper maintenance and support — executors — testator's will — Family Protection Act 1955, ss 4 & 5 — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 (CA) — Ormsby v Van Selm [2015] NZHC 2822 — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 650 — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2000] 2 NZLR 650 — Henry v Henry [2007] NZCA 42, [2007] NZFLR 640 — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310 — Bosch v Pertual Trustees Company Limited [1938] AC 463 (PC) — Re Leonard [1985] 2 NZLR 88 — Flathaug v Weaver [2003] NZFLR 730 — Scott v Graham [2021] NZHC 592 — Re Worms v Campbell [1953] NZLR 924 — Re the Will of F B Gilbert [1946] 46 NZWSR 318 — Vincent v lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 — Re Gretton [1957] NZLJ 34 — Hita v Hita [2023] NZHC 2171. The two applicants, who were excluded from the testator's Will, sought to be provided for their proper maintenance and support in the Will. The applicant's father died years back had left half of his estate to be divided between the children and the other half was left with their mother, the testator who had died. The couple had eight children. The testator had varying relationships with each child and left three children out of her Will. Only five children were to receive from her share. Two of the children not included in the Will were applicants who sought support. They submitted that it was not because they needed the maintenance but rather to be recognised as children of the deceased. One of the other children not included in the Will did not engage in the proceedings. The law stated the Court had discretion to make an order for claims against a deceased person's estate for maintenance, and a consideration was whether there was a breach of moral duty. The first applicant was not mentioned in any of the different versions of the Wills or known to the testator's lawyer. The first applicant had noted that he was actively involved with the testator's life when there were other legal disputes within the family. The first applicant and the testator had a falling out, however after the testator had a stroke the first applicant was the child she called and they had regular contact until her death. The Court noted that the parties and their siblings have had several falling out and reconciliations over the years, the testator had expressed extreme views about her children in regards to the Will, and that it was the first applicant who helped the testator with the transfer for the first home. The Court found that the testator had a moral duty to provide recognition for the first applicant and ordered he should receive 10 per cent of the estate. The second applicant alleged that the testator was abusive during her childhood and they had a strained relationship, they stopped contact for several years even up to the testator's death and the second applicant did not attend the testator's funeral. The Court concluded the testator had a moral duty to the second applicant, to provide for her in recognition of their relationship and their struggles. The Court ordered that 7.5 per cent was to be given to the second applicant. For both applicants, the Court acknowledged the testator's freedom to favour her children, which was why the applicant's percentage share was lower than the other siblings' shares. Judgment Date: 7 June 2024 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *