Diocesan Trustees of the Church of England in Western Australia v Solicitor-General

The case of *Diocesan Trustees of the Church of England in Western Australia v Solicitor-General* concerned the interpretation of a will by Walter Padbury, which directed that the balance of his estate be divided into three equal parts. One part was to go to the Diocesan Trustees of the Church of England, a second part to the trustees of hospitals and lunatic asylums, and the third part to the trustees of poor houses. The appeals before the High Court of Australia, heard together, involved disputes over the entitlement of the Government Lunatic Asylum and Government-run "Poor Houses" to receive their respective shares of the estate, given that these institutions lacked formal trustees.

The primary legal issues before the Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the Government Lunatic Asylum, which was the only such institution in Western Australia and had no trustees, was entitled to share in the bequest designated for "trustees for the time being of the hospitals and lunatic asylums," and if so, in what proportion. Secondly, whether the "Poor Houses" referred to in the will designated Government institutions of that name, to the exclusion of private charities, and were therefore entitled to the third of the residuary estate.

The Court reasoned that in the case of the lunatic asylum, the testator's intention to benefit such institutions was clear, despite the absence of formal trustees. Applying the legal principle of *falsa demonstratio* (erroneous description), the Court held that the words "the trustees of" could be disregarded as an inaccurate addition to an otherwise sufficient description of the intended beneficiary. This allowed the Government Lunatic Asylum to share *pari passu* with the hospitals in that portion of the bequest. Similarly, for the "Poor Houses," the Court found that the term, as used in Western Australia at the time of the will, referred to Government institutions maintained at public expense. Therefore, the same principle of *falsa demonstratio* was applied, and the bequest was held to benefit these Government institutions.

Consequently, the Court varied the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. It declared that the Government Lunatic Asylum was entitled to share equally with the hospitals in its designated third of the estate, and that the Government "Poor Houses" were entitled to the third of the estate designated for "Poor Houses." In both instances, the Court directed that trustees be appointed by the Court to administer these funds and that a scheme be settled for their application, ensuring the moneys would benefit the inmates rather than simply augment government revenue.