A'Beckett v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding the construction of two deeds of appointment made under a marriage settlement. The parties were the Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. (as trustees), and the children of the marriage, who were beneficiaries. The dispute centred on how a fund of approximately £7,600, representing the unappointed balance of purchase moneys from a rescinded land sale contract, should be distributed amongst the beneficiaries according to the terms of the two deeds.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the eighth appointment in the second deed of 9th February 1900. This appointment directed the trustees to hold "moneys in their possession or under their control subject to the trusts of the settlement 'of which no other appointment is made by the said within written deed of appointment of the 10th September 1889 or by these presents'" upon trust, with two-thirds for one son and one-third for the other. The court had to determine whether this clause applied to the £7,600 balance, and if so, to the exclusion of other beneficiaries.

Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that, given the context of the second deed and the known state of the trust fund, the eighth appointment was intended to apply specifically to the £7,600. They reasoned that the appointors, by revoking prior appointments only "so far as may be necessary to the validity of the directions and appointments hereinafter contained and not further or otherwise," intended to make a fresh and complete distribution of the remaining assets. As no other appointment of this specific sum was made by either deed, the sons were entitled to it in the proportions of two-thirds and one-third, to the exclusion of the daughters. Isaacs J., dissenting, believed the principle of proportionate abatement from *Page v. Leapingwell* would have applied to the initial appointment, and subsequent events should not alter its construction.

The High Court, by majority, reversed the judgment of Hood J. in the Supreme Court. The order was that the two sons were entitled to the £7,600 fund in the proportions of two-thirds and one-third, respectively, to the exclusion of the daughters.