In New Zealand law, "moral duty" in the context of the Family Protection Act 1955 refers to the obligation of a deceased person to provide for the proper maintenance and support of certain family members. If a person dies and their will does not adequately provide for eligible family members, the court can intervene to redistribute the estate.

Moral Duty & the Family Protection Act 1955

• The Act allows eligible family members (such as a spouse, children, grandchildren, and sometimes parents or stepchildren) to challenge a will if they believe they have not been adequately provided for.

• Courts consider whether the deceased failed in their moral duty to provide for the claimant’s proper maintenance and support.

• The concept of moral duty is not strictly defined in law but is based on legal precedent and social expectations about reasonable financial provision.

Factors Considered by the Court

When assessing whether a deceased has breached their moral duty, the court considers:

1. The claimant’s financial needs – whether they are in financial hardship or require support.

2. The claimant’s relationship with the deceased – including past contributions or estrangement.

3. The size of the estate – larger estates are expected to provide more support.

4. Other beneficiaries’ entitlements – balancing fairness among all beneficiaries.

5. Cultural and ethical expectations – including Māori tikanga (customary law) where relevant.

​

Notable Cases Involving Moral Obligations in the Family Protection Act 1955

​

1. Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479

In this pivotal case, the Court of Appeal clarified that "support" under the Act encompasses more than mere financial need; it includes recognition of belonging to the family and being part of the deceased's life. The court emphasized that while financial need is a factor, moral and ethical considerations are also crucial in determining adequate provision.

​

2. Ormsby v Van Selm [2015] NZHC 2822

Here, the High Court addressed a situation where the deceased's son received a substantial portion of the estate, while two daughters received minimal shares. One daughter, who had endured a traumatic upbringing, challenged the will. The court recognized the moral duty owed to her, resulting in a significant adjustment of the estate distribution to better provide for her.

​

3. Ashworth v Lambie [2012] NZHC 1110

This case involved parents who transferred a family farm to their son, with their remaining assets divided equally among their three children. The daughters contested the will, seeking a larger share. The court upheld the parents' intentions, noting the son's lifelong contribution to the farm and the adequacy of the daughters' provisions, thereby dismissing the claim.

​

4. Cartwright v Joseph [2018] NZHC 2383

In this matter, a father excluded his two daughters from a $4 million estate, leaving everything to his second wife. Despite the daughters' stable financial positions, the court found a breach of moral duty due to the father's estrangement and lack of support. Each daughter was awarded 10% of the estate, acknowledging their emotional needs and the father's obligations.

​

5. Kinney v Pardington [2019] NZHC 317

The High Court considered the claim of an illegitimate daughter who was excluded from her father's will. Despite the father's efforts to keep her existence a secret, the court recognized his moral duty towards her. Given her financial instability and psychological distress resulting from his neglect, she was awarded a substantial portion of the estate to remedy the breach of duty.

These cases illustrate the courts' approach in balancing financial, moral, and ethical considerations when determining claims under the Family Protection Act 1955.