BALSON & BLICK

In *Balson & Blick*, Hartnett J of the Supreme Court of Victoria was required to determine a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The applicants, Balson and Blick, sought to have the will of the late Mr. Arthur John Blick construed by the Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the beneficiaries named in the will were entitled to receive the entirety of the residuary estate, or if a portion of that estate was to be held on trust for the benefit of Mr. Blick's grandchildren. This question turned on the proper construction of clause 5 of the will, which dealt with the distribution of the residuary estate.

Hartnett J considered the language of clause 5 in its entirety, applying established principles of testamentary construction. His Honour found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the clause indicated an intention to create a discretionary trust for the benefit of the grandchildren, rather than an outright gift to the named beneficiaries. The Court reasoned that the testator's use of specific phrasing indicated a clear intention to preserve a portion of the estate for the grandchildren, to be administered at the discretion of the trustees.

The Court therefore ordered that the residuary estate was to be held on trust for the benefit of the grandchildren of the late Mr. Arthur John Blick, in accordance with the terms of clause 5 of the will.