Mocatta v Mocatta [1915] HCA 29

Mocatta v Mocatta [1915] HCA 29

The Court held that there was no context in the will to indicate that 'representatives' should mean anything other than its primary legal sense (executors or administrators); thus, the primary meaning applies.

Parties
Appellant: Hugh Osborne Mocatta; Respondent: Ada Frances Mocatta; Respondent: Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Lucy Throsby Manning
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Meaning of 'representatives' in Wills
Wills and Estates Will Construction Meaning of 'representatives' in Wills

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Osborne Mocatta

Appellant

Ada Frances Mocatta

Respondent

Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Lucy Throsby Manning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'representatives' in the will means executors or administrators or includes other persons such as children or next of kin

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there was no context in the will to indicate that 'representatives' should mean anything other than its primary legal sense (executors or administrators); thus, the primary meaning applies.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs to be retained out of the shares of the daughters other than Lucy Throsby Manning.