Attorney-General (Vic) v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Limited

The Attorney-General for Victoria appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the distribution of the intestate estate of a married woman. The deceased, Julia Brown, died leaving her husband, Samuel Hammett Brown, but no children or next of kin. The administrators of her estate, Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Limited, sought directions on the distribution, and the Supreme Court had determined that the husband was entitled to the whole of the estate.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 25 of the *Married Women's Property Act 1890* (Vic). This section stipulated that the real and personal estate of a married woman dying intestate, after payment of expenses and debts, was to be distributable between her husband and her children or next of kin in the same manner and proportions as the estate of a married man dying intestate was distributable between his widow and his children or next of kin. The court had to determine whether this section provided a complete and exhaustive rule for the distribution of a married woman's intestate estate, superseding prior common law and statutory provisions.

The High Court held that section 25 of the *Married Women's Property Act 1890* established a complete and exhaustive code for the distribution of a married woman's intestate estate, overriding all previous rules. The Court reasoned that the language of the section, particularly the phrase "distributable between her husband and her children or next of kin in the like manner and proportions," incorporated the principles of the *Statute of Distributions 1670*. Consequently, where a married woman died intestate without children, her husband was entitled to the same share as a widow would receive if her husband died intestate without children, which is one half of the estate. The remaining half, being without next of kin, devolved to the Crown as *bona vacantia*.

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Supreme Court was varied to declare that the husband was entitled to one half only of the deceased's estate. The costs of all parties were to be paid out of the Crown's half of the estate, with the trustees' costs taxed as between solicitor and client.