Application for extension of time to bring claim — reason for delay — testamentary promise — nexus between promise and service — Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, ss 3 & 6 — Lilley v Public Trustee [1978] 2 NZLR 605 (CA) — Lilley v Public Trustee [1981] 1 NZLR 41 — Bearman v Hardie Boys [1973] 2 NZLR 204 (CA) — Re McTavish (dec’d) (2001) 21 FRNZ 523 — Bell v Ehlers FC Dunedin FAM-2008-012-122, 5 May 2009 — Neville v Foy FC North Shore FAM-2010-044-972, 30 August 2011 — Van Uden v Van Uden [2013] NZHC 520 — Toon v Plumber HC Auckland A261/59, 8 December 1959. This was an application by the step-daughter of the deceased for an extension of time to bring a claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act ("the Act"). The step-daughter had not been made a beneficiary of the deceased's estate. She claimed that the deceased had made a promise during his lifetime that he would reward the applicant for services rendered to the family farm. The application was brought some four months out of time. Under s 6 of the Act a court may grant an extension of time to bring a claim; an applicant must show that the reason for the delay should not count against them, and that if the extension were to be allowed the claim would have a reasonable chance of success. Factors to be taken into account include extent of delay; reasons for the delay; prejudice to others; and merits of the applicant’s case. The reasons for the delay were that the applicant had been unaware of the will for some time, ignorance of the time constraints, change of counsel, and time required to accumulate evidence for the application. It was noted that had the applicant not been mis-described to in proceedings taken by the third and fourth respondents as a family friend rather than as a step-sibling, then court would have made directions for her to served with the proceedings. The Judge was satisfied that the reasons for the delay and amount of time were not unreasonable in the circumstances, and that an extension would not cause prejudice to others. On the issue of the promise made to the applicant, the applicant had to show, pursuant to s 3 of the Act, that there was an implied or express promise made and a sufficient nexus between the promise and the services rendered. She submitted she had done work on the deceased's farm as a child and teenager and there had been an implied promise following the death of her mother that she would be compensated for the work. The Judge was not satisfied on the evidence that there was a sufficient nexus between the promise and the work and therefore the claim had no reasonable chance of success. The Judge declined the application for an extension of time. Judgment Date: 24 August 2020.