Coleman v Orr

Coleman v Orr involved a dispute concerning the construction of a testamentary disposition in the context of a will. The deceased, Lillian May Beattie, left a will and a codicil that included provisions for substitutional gifts to the "issue" of named beneficiaries if they did not survive the deceased. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "issue" within the will and codicil, specifically whether it referred only to direct children of the deceased or whether it extended to more remote descendants such as grandchildren or great-grandchildren. The court was also required to determine whether the solicitor who drafted the will should bear the costs associated with the executor’s application for the construction of the will.

The court considered the principles of will construction and noted that the context of the will and the absence of ambiguity suggested that "issue" should be interpreted narrowly to mean direct children. The court held that the deceased’s intention was to provide for her direct descendants, rather than extending to more remote descendants. Additionally, regarding the costs, the court held that the solicitor who drafted the will should bear the costs of the executor’s application, given that it was a forgone conclusion that "issue" would be interpreted as "children" only and the deceased’s estate was small. The court emphasised that the solicitor, as the drafter of the will, should bear responsibility for any costs arising from the necessity to clarify the will’s meaning.

The final orders of the court declared that the term "issue" in the will and codicil should be construed to refer to the children of the deceased beneficiaries. The court also ordered that the solicitor who drafted the will should bear the costs of the executor’s application for the construction of the will, with specific directions on the basis of costs to be paid. The executor was granted liberty to apply for any further orders related to costs.