Lewis v O'Loughlin [1971] HCA 53

Lewis v O'Loughlin [1971] HCA 53

In the context of this home-made will and the circumstances known to the testatrix, including that she was sole next-of-kin of Phoebe Dawn Matthews and treated the Crafers land in that estate as property whose destination she could determine, the words "the total sum of my monetary investments and monies in banks" were intended and apt to include the investments and moneys in banks in Phoebe's estate and, through it, the estate of Charles George Thomas Whittle. The possessive "my" was natural lay language for assets to which the testatrix had become solely entitled, and the technical nature of her interest in an unadministered estate did not prevent the bequest from operating.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Construction of a Will and Administration of an Estate / High Court Appeal From Answers Given by the Supreme Court of South Australia on an Originating Summons
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['construction of a Home Made Will' 'specific Bequest' 'intestacy' "beneficiary's Interest in an Unadministered Estate" 'presumption Against Intestacy']
['succession' 'probate and Administration' 'trusts and Estates'] ['construction of a Home Made Will' 'specific Bequest' 'intestacy' "beneficiary's Interest in an Unadministered Estate" 'presumption Against 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Construction of a Will and Administration of an Estate / High Court Appeal From Answers Given by the Supreme Court of South Australia on an Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bequest of "the total sum of my monetary investments and monies in banks" included investments and moneys in banks forming part of the unadministered estate of Phoebe Dawn Matthews, to which the testatrix was sole next-of-kin.' "Whether the testatrix's interest in the estate of Phoebe Dawn Matthews, including through that estate the estate of Charles George Thomas Whittle, passed under the bequest or as on an intestacy." 'Whether the relevant bequest could alternatively operate as a residuary gift of personalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

In the context of this home-made will and the circumstances known to the testatrix, including that she was sole next-of-kin of Phoebe Dawn Matthews and treated the Crafers land in that estate as property whose destination she could determine, the words "the total sum of my monetary investments and monies in banks" were intended and apt to include the investments and moneys in banks in Phoebe's estate and, through it, the estate of Charles George Thomas Whittle. The possessive "my" was natural lay language for assets to which the testatrix had become solely entitled, and the technical nature of her interest in an unadministered estate did not prevent the bequest from operating.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Answer given by the Supreme Court to Question 1(a) set aside and in lieu thereof the question answered: The testatrix has made an effective specific bequest of the assets specified in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and, except for the first and second items of $274.11 and $308.00 respectively which pass as on an...