Schellenberger v Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd [1952] HCA 69

Schellenberger v Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd [1952] HCA 69

The gift for the "beautification and advancement" of Bunyip was a valid charitable gift because, properly construed, it contemplated the provision of physical things in the township for the edification, enjoyment and general benefit of the local community as a whole, not benefits for private individuals. Whether the words were read conjunctively or disjunctively did not affect validity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision in Chambers on an Originating Summons Relating to a Will / High Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; order varied.
Legal Topics
['charitable Trusts' 'construction of Testamentary Trusts' 'validity for Uncertainty' 'beautification and Advancement of a Township' 'cy Pres and Schemes for Administration']
['trusts and Estates' 'charity Law' 'wills and Probate'] ['charitable Trusts' 'construction of Testamentary Trusts' 'validity for Uncertainty' 'beautification and Advancement of a Township' 'cy Pres and Schemes for Administration']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Decision in Chambers on an Originating Summons Relating to a Will / High Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the testamentary trust for the "beautification and advancement" of the township of Bunyip was void for uncertainty or was a valid charitable trust.' 'Whether "beautification and advancement" should be construed conjunctively or disjunctively.' 'Whether a scheme for administration of the charitable trust should be settled by the court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The gift for the "beautification and advancement" of Bunyip was a valid charitable gift because, properly construed, it contemplated the provision of physical things in the township for the edification, enjoyment and general benefit of the local community as a whole, not benefits for private individuals. Whether the words were read conjunctively or disjunctively did not affect validity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; order varied.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Order varied by deleting paragraph 3 of the order as it stood and substituting: "It is unnecessary to answer this question".' 'After the representative order, the plaintiff and the defendant the Attorney-General have liberty to apply with regard to the mode of application of the...