Tatham v Huxtable [1950] HCA 56

Tatham v Huxtable [1950] HCA 56

The testator failed to provide a definite criterion for the ascertainment of beneficiaries regarding the distribution of the residue; as a result, the entire residuary bequest under clause (11) is void for uncertainty. Evidence seeking to show drafting error is inadmissible.

Parties
Testator: Joseph Tatham (deceased); Executor/respondent: Edgar Ernest Huxtable; Appellant/next of Kin Representative: Richard Tatham; Appellant/next of Kin Representative: John Tatham; Respondent/named Beneficiary: Princess Margaret Hospital for Children; Respondent/submitting Party: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 1950
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Supreme Court of Western Australia reversed.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Disposition, Certainty of Beneficiaries, Powers of Appointment, Interpretation of Wills, Void for Uncertainty
Wills and Estates Equity Testamentary Disposition Certainty of Beneficiaries Powers of Appointment Interpretation of Wills Void for Uncertainty

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Tatham (deceased)

Testator

Edgar Ernest Huxtable

Executor/respondent

Richard Tatham

Appellant/next of Kin Representative

John Tatham

Appellant/next of Kin Representative

Princess Margaret Hospital for Children

Respondent/named Beneficiary

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Respondent/submitting Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause (11) of the will validly disposes of the residuary estate or is void for uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence of mistake in drafting is admissible in construction proceedings
  3. 3 Whether a testator may delegate selection of beneficiaries where the class is undefined

Ratio Decidendi

The testator failed to provide a definite criterion for the ascertainment of beneficiaries regarding the distribution of the residue; as a result, the entire residuary bequest under clause (11) is void for uncertainty. Evidence seeking to show drafting error is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Supreme Court of Western Australia reversed.

Orders

  • The entire residuary bequest in clause (11) of Joseph Tatham's will is void for uncertainty.
  • Costs of all parties as between solicitor and client to be paid out of the residuary estate; costs of the Attorney-General as of a submitting party.