Pankhurst v Porter [1917] HCA 52

Pankhurst v Porter [1917] HCA 52

In the wills appeal, the testamentary gifts are valid; the words used in the will are sufficiently certain, as the testator indicated the Party and its objects as his beneficiaries, and the executive committee's discretion is limited to the declared purposes of the Party. In the War Precautions matter, a person who seconds a prejudicial resolution does make a statement within the meaning of reg. 28(b), but the chairman who merely puts the resolution to vote does not make a statement under the regulation.

Parties
Appellant: Van Kerk-Voorde; Respondent: Moroney; Defendant: William Percival Pearce; Defendant: Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (wills); Conviction upheld for seconder, quashed for chairman (War Precautions)
Legal Topics
Certainty in Charitable Trusts, Testamentary Gifts, War Precautions Regulations, Criminal Liability for Statements, Meetings Procedure
Wills and Estates War Precautions/criminal Law Certainty in Charitable Trusts Testamentary Gifts War Precautions Regulations Criminal Liability for Statements Meetings Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Kerk-Voorde

Appellant

Moroney

Respondent

William Percival Pearce

Defendant

Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 1. Whether testamentary gifts to the Socialist Labour Party of Australia are void for uncertainty.
  2. 2 2. Whether, under War Precautions Regulations 1915, reg. 28(b), the act of seconding a resolution or putting a resolution as chairman amounts to making a statement likely to prejudice recruiting.

Ratio Decidendi

In the wills appeal, the testamentary gifts are valid; the words used in the will are sufficiently certain, as the testator indicated the Party and its objects as his beneficiaries, and the executive committee's discretion is limited to the declared purposes of the Party. In the War Precautions matter, a person who seconds a prejudicial resolution does make a statement within the meaning of reg. 28(b), but the chairman who merely puts the resolution to vote does not make a statement under the regulation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (wills); Conviction upheld for seconder, quashed for chairman (War Precautions)

Orders

  • Plaintiff to retain her costs out of the estate; costs of other parties of this appeal out of the estate as between solicitor and client.