East London Hospital for Children and Dispensary for Women v Wilberforce Cobbett

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania regarding the interpretation of the *Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act 1915* (Tas.). The dispute arose from the calculation of estate duty payable by the executors of Professor Pitt Cobbett, who died domiciled in Tasmania, leaving property both within Tasmania and in other British Dominions. The core issue was how deductions allowed under section 55 of the Act, for duties paid in other jurisdictions, should be treated when calculating the apportionment of duty among beneficiaries under sections 30 and 32 of the Act.

The High Court was required to determine whether the amount of duty to be adjusted and apportioned among the beneficiaries, as directed by sections 30 and 32, should be calculated based on the full duty payable under the Tasmanian Act, or on the reduced amount of duty remaining after the deductions allowed by section 55. Specifically, the court had to decide if the deductions made under section 55 were to be factored into the calculation of the "duty upon the same respectively, calculated at the same rate as is payable on the estate" as stipulated in section 30.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Isaacs and Starke JJ., affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. They reasoned that section 55 of the Act effectively reduced the total duty payable to Tasmania by the amount allowed as a deduction. Therefore, the subsequent apportionment and adjustment of this duty among beneficiaries under sections 30 and 32 should be based on this reduced amount, reflecting the actual duty payable to the Tasmanian Commissioner of Taxes. Isaacs J. further elaborated that the "rate" mentioned in section 30 should be interpreted in light of the actual duty payable after all statutory allowances, while Starke J. concluded that the primary object of section 30 was for each beneficiary to bear the duty paid or payable in respect of their specific inheritance, which necessitated using the reduced duty amount.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was affirmed. The costs of the trustees were to be paid out of the trust fund on a solicitor-client basis.