Parremore v Gangell [1962] HCA 17

Parremore v Gangell [1962] HCA 17

The majority held that the will, although clumsily expressed, intended the two undivided shares initially given to George Edward Gangell and John James Gangell as tenants in common for life to remain separate throughout the subsequent limitations. The words referring to the deaths of either or both sons and to their respective widows indicated parallel devolutions of each son's share, not a single postponed class gift of the whole estate. Because John James Gangell left no widow and his only child died before attaining twenty-one and before surviving him, the gift that would have vested in that child failed and fell into residue, distributable as part of Alice Gangell's estate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Construction of a Will and Trusts of Real Property / High Court Appeal From Order of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['construction of Will' 'life Interests' 'remainders to Children' 'per Capita and Per Stirpes Distribution' 'residue' 'partition']
['succession' 'trusts' 'property'] ['construction of Will' 'life Interests' 'remainders to Children' 'per Capita and Per Stirpes Distribution' 'residue' 'partition']

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 Trusts of Real Property / High Court Appeal From Order of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the will created two separate undivided shares in the farm and 100 acres, with each share devolving separately after the death of each son and any widow, or a single final class gift to the children of both sons who attained twenty-one.' 'Whether the gift that would have vested in the child of John James Gangell had he attained twenty-one and survived his father fell into residue.' "Whether the ultimate distribution under the will was per capita among all qualifying grandchildren or per stirpes by reference to the two sons' shares."]

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the will, although clumsily expressed, intended the two undivided shares initially given to George Edward Gangell and John James Gangell as tenants in common for life to remain separate throughout the subsequent limitations. The words referring to the deaths of either or both sons and to their respective widows indicated parallel devolutions of each son's share, not a single postponed class gift of the whole estate. Because John James Gangell left no widow and his only child died before attaining twenty-one and before surviving him, the gift that would have vested in that child failed and fell into residue, distributable as part of Alice Gangell's estate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Allow appeal.' 'Discharge the order of the Supreme Court in so far as it answers question 1 (a) in the originating summons and declares that it is unnecessary to answer question 1 (d) thereof.' 'In lieu thereof declare that the gift under the trusts of the Will of William Gangell deceased which would have vested...