Provision from Estate — last will — breach of moral duty —estrangement — Family Protection Act 1955, s 4 — Re Franich CA 101/79, 18 June 1981 — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 (CA) — Robbins v Hays [2022] NZFC 7768 — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479 — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2002] 2 NZLR 650 (CA) — Henry v Henry [2007] NZFLR 640 (CA) — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310 — Crosswell v Jenkins (1985) 2 NZFLR 575 (HC) — Re Watson HC Napier CP23/2000, 22 February 2002 — Flathaug v Weaver (2003) NZFLR 730 (CA) — Shannon v Bowering HC Rotorua CP 33/97, 21 August 2020 — Rothnie v Public Trust Office HC Wellington CP 203/95, 22 September 1997 — Re Upton HC Wellington CP 169/94, 28 September 1993 — Kinney v Pardington [2019] NZHC 317 — Vincent v Lewis [2006] NZFLR 812 — Re Crewe (Deceased) [1995] NZLR 210 (SC) — Crosswell v Jenkins and Haff-Jones Hall-Jones (1985) 3 NZFLR 570 (HC) — Re Young (Deceased) [1965] NZLR 294 — Re Ward (Deceased) [1964] NZLR 929 (SC) — Re Green (Deceased) [1951] NZLR 135 (CA) — Moon v Carlin HC Auckland, CIV 2020-404-005486, 23 February 2011 — Barnard v Robertson [2023] NZCA 103 — Barnard v Robertson [2022] NZHC 469 — Favel v Dorsey HC Christchurch M278/87, 6 July 1988. The applicant sought for provision from the estate of her mother (the testator). The testator died and her will listed the applicant's two siblings, their children and two friends as beneficiaries, but excluded the applicant and her children. The applicant's siblings, the respondents, opposed the application. The applicant and the testator had a strained relationship and they were estranged for over 28 years. The only contact they had was when the applicant visited the testator unannounced many years before. The respondents claimed the applicant's behaviour during her teenage years caused the strain in the relationship and it only continued in her adult years. The respondents also cited an incident involving a gun, and the applicant's eulogy at the testator's funeral, as a reason to oppose the application. The applicant submitted that the testator was abusive to her from a young age and continued to exclude her later in life. The applicant remained close to her father and they would meet without the testator. The Court was to determine whether the testator breached her moral duty to the applicant, and what the appropriate remedy would be. The Court found that the testator's reason for excluding the applicant was not valid. The testator had failed to understand the applicant when she was a teenager, and it was not wise or just to exclude the applicant from her will. The testator, as a mother, did not meet the applicant's needs to transition into adulthood; therefore the testator failed her moral duty to the applicant. The Court found that the testator was primarily responsible for the estrangement, therefore the respondents' offer of 10 per cent was not an adequate remedy to the moral breach as the other beneficiaries already received other gifts on top of their share. The estate was divided into sevenths, with 3/7 going to the applicant and 2/7 going to the other beneficiaries. Judgment Date: 27 November 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *