Beattie v Sainsbury - [2003] NSWSC 499

CITATION: Beattie v Sainsbury [2003] NSWSC 499

HEARING DATE(S): 04/06/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

DECISION: No contrary intention shown therefore s 29 operates to prevent lapse of gift.

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION [156]- Will- Construction- Gift to children- Child predeceased testator- Whether lapse- Whether contrary intention to principle in s 29 of the Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898

LEGISLATION CITED: Wills Probate & Administration Act 1898, s 29

CASES CITED: Bassett v Hall [1994] 1 VR 432
Davies v The National Trustees Executor & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1912] VLR 397
Ex parte Ray; Re May (1815) 1 Maddocks 199; 56 ER 74
Re Harrison (1885) 30 Ch D 390
Re Jenkinson [2000] NSWSC 495
Re Meredith [1924] 2 Ch 552

PARTIES :
Paul Stephen Beattie (P1)
Jennifer June Beattie Allen (P2)
Ian Noel Beattie (P3)
Ronald Bruce Sainsbury (D)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4367/02

COUNSEL: Ms J Needham (P)
J Wilson (D)

SOLICITORS: Hunt & Hunt (P)
Philip J King (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Wednesday 4 June 2003

4367/02 – BEATTIE v SAINSBURY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Henry Holmes Sainsbury died on 23 February 2002. Probate of his will, made 1 September 2000, was granted to the defendant on 11 December 2002.

2 The testator's will contained only one dispositive clause and that is cl 4, which reads as follows:

I GIVE

RONALD BRUCE SAINSBURY

ZELMA JUNE BEATTIE

3 Zelma June Beattie predeceased the testator: she died on 21 June 2001. Zelma June Beattie left a will, by which she appointed the first plaintiff as her executor and made benefactions to the other plaintiffs. Probate of that will was granted to the first plaintiff on 18 September 2001.

4 The point of construction which has divided the parties, and which has brought the matter before the court, is as to whether s 29 of the Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 applies to the moiety left to Zelma June Beattie.

5 Section 29 provides:

“Where any person being a child or other issue of the testator to whom any real or personal estate is devised or bequeathed for any estate or interest not determinable at or before the death of such person dies in the lifetime of the testator, leaving issue, and any such issue of such person is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beattie v Sainsbury

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Sainsbury [2003] NSWSC 499
Case: [2003] NSWSC 499
Decision Date: 4 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beattie v Sainsbury, the dispute arose from the interpretation of a will. The deceased had left a gift to his children, but one of the children had predeceased the deceased. The issue before the court was whether the gift to the predeceased child lapsed, or if the intention of the deceased was to gift the property to the predeceased child's descendants, thereby circumventing the statutory principle in section 29 of the Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898. The court was tasked with determining the proper construction of the will in light of this issue.

The court considered the language of the will and the intentions of the deceased, weighing the statutory principle against the context of the will. The court found that the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, indicating an intention to gift the property to the predeceased child's descendants, rather than allowing the gift to lapse. The court held that the deceased's intention was to provide for the predeceased child's descendants, and that this intention was not contrary to the statutory principle in section 29 of the Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898. The court found that the gift to the predeceased child did not lapse, but rather passed to the predeceased child's descendants.

The court's decision in Beattie v Sainsbury highlights the importance of carefully considering the language and context of a will in determining the proper interpretation of a gift. The court's analysis of the statutory principle and the deceased's intentions provides guidance for practitioners when drafting wills and advising clients on the construction of wills in similar circumstances. The court's decision also emphasises the importance of clear and unambiguous language in wills to ensure that the deceased's intentions are properly carried out.

Orders