Testamentary promise — work and service — nexus between service and promise — failure to make promised provision — Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 ss 2, 3 — McAllister v Public Trustee [1947] NZLR 334 — Re Archer [1990] 3 NZLR 737— Bearman v Dunn [1974] 2 NZLR 405 — Hawkins v Public Trustees [1960] NZLR 305 — Re Moore (Dec’d) [1965] NZLR 895 — PH v GH [2013] NZHC 443 —Byrne v Bishop [2001] 3 NZLR 780 (CA) — Gibson v Gibson HC Dunedin CP 9/90, 15/4/1992 — Re Welch [1993] NZLR 1 — L v W (No. 2) [2004] NZFLR 36 — Kelly v Police HC Whangarei, AP 41/01, 23/8/2022 — Masters-Stoddart v Public Trustee [2012] NZHC 1168 — Samuels v Atkinson [2009] NZCA 566 — Smith v Public Trustee 27/9/2002 Priestly J, HC Auckland — Halewood v Public Trust Family Court Blenheim FAM-2008-002-1095 10/5/2011 — Ace v Guardian Trust & Executives Co Ltd [1948] NZLR 103 — Jones v Public Trustee [1962] NZLR 363 — Chapman v HP HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-1372 2/7/2009 — Tombes v Macassey CA 174/02, 18/6/2003 — Annett v Nurmela [2018] NZHC 2841 — Cain v Nyhan [2007] NZFLR 1055 — BDD v IBG [2006] NZFLR 862. The applicant sought an order for renumeration from her late sister's estate after providing care for the final four and a half months of her life. The applicant claimed that the deceased had promised her three times that she would be the primary beneficiary of her estate, but did not make alterations to her will to this effect. The court identified four issues that needed answering in this hearing: whether there had been an express or implied promise for reward, whether the applicant had rendered services or performed work for the deceased, whether there was a nexus between the services and the promise, and whether the deceased had failed to make the promised provision or otherwise remunerate the applicant. On the first issue, the court found that the applicant and her evidence were highly credible and overall the evidence on balance pointed toward the promises being legitimate. It was accepted that the reason that neither the applicant nor the deceased told anyone about the promise was because they were both very private people. On the second issue, the court found that the applicant was solely responsible for the deceased's nursing and physical care as well as providing emotional comfort and companionship, which went over and above what would be expected of a family member. The court also found that there was a nexus between the promise made by the deceased and the services provided by the applicant, and that the deceased clearly failed to make the promised provision as no alterations were made to her will. The court awarded the applicant $750,000 from the $1,811,668.18 estate. Judgment Date: 21 July 2023