Beverley Joy Priestley as Executor of the Estate of the Late Gordon Wedlock Priestley v Priestley

This case concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, brought by Beverley Joy Priestley, in her capacity as executor of the estate of the late Gordon Wedlock Priestley, against a decision of a single judge. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a clause within the deceased's will, specifically concerning the distribution of the residue of his estate.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the deceased's intention, as expressed in his will, was to create a discretionary trust or a fixed trust in favour of his children. This involved determining whether the executor had a discretion to distribute the residue of the estate amongst the beneficiaries, or whether the beneficiaries were entitled to the residue in fixed proportions as stipulated by the will.

The Court analysed the language of the relevant clause, paying close attention to the use of the word "may" in conjunction with the executor's power to distribute. Bell and Keane JJ concluded that the wording indicated a discretionary power vested in the executor, rather than a mandatory obligation to distribute in fixed shares. They applied the principle that the intention of the testator, as gathered from the whole of the will, is paramount. The Court found that the executor had a discretion to determine the proportions in which the beneficiaries would receive the residue, and that the single judge had erred in holding otherwise.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the single judge were set aside. The Full Court declared that the executor held the residue of the estate on a discretionary trust for the benefit of the deceased's children.