Sidle v Queensland Trustees Limited [1915] HCA 48

Sidle v Queensland Trustees Limited [1915] HCA 48

Reading the will as a whole, 'child' in the relevant declaration does not include a son of the testator but refers to children or remoter issue of the testator's sons. As the sons left no issue who attained vested interests, the gift over in favor of nephews and nieces became operative and there was no intestacy.

Parties
Appellant: Maude Augusta Sidle; Respondents: Queensland Trustees Ltd. and John George McGregor; Respondents: Thomas Sidle and Carlton Hugh Sidle
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Will, Vested Interests, Gift Over, Intestacy
Wills and Estates Construction of Will Vested Interests Gift Over Intestacy

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maude Augusta Sidle

Appellant

Queensland Trustees Ltd. and John George McGregor

Respondents

Thomas Sidle and Carlton Hugh Sidle

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testator died intestate as to all or any part of his estate
  2. 2 Meaning of 'child or issue of mine' in the will
  3. 3 Who is entitled to the estate of the testator

Ratio Decidendi

Reading the will as a whole, 'child' in the relevant declaration does not include a son of the testator but refers to children or remoter issue of the testator's sons. As the sons left no issue who attained vested interests, the gift over in favor of nephews and nieces became operative and there was no intestacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • By consent, no costs against the appellant.
  • Trustees to have costs out of the estate.