Connolly & Ors v Craig

In *Connolly & Ors v Craig*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The applicants, the executors of the will, sought directions from the court regarding the distribution of the deceased's estate, specifically concerning a bequest to the respondent, who was the deceased's de facto partner. The core of the dispute lay in whether the respondent was entitled to a specific bequest of a property, or if the bequest had lapsed due to the respondent's death prior to the deceased.

The High Court was required to determine whether the bequest to the respondent had lapsed. This involved an examination of the deceased's intention as expressed in the will, particularly in light of the respondent's death before the deceased. The central legal issue was whether the will contained a substitutional gift, meaning an intention that the bequest should pass to the respondent's issue if the respondent predeceased the testator, or if the bequest failed entirely.

The Court analysed the language of the will, applying established principles of testamentary construction. McHugh and Gummow JJ found that the will did not contain any express provision for a substitutional gift to the respondent's issue. They concluded that the ordinary rule of lapse applied, meaning that the bequest to the respondent failed because the respondent predeceased the testator. The Court held that there was no evidence within the will itself to suggest a contrary intention on the part of the testator.

The High Court ordered that the bequest of the property to the respondent had lapsed and formed part of the residue of the estate.