HENDERSON & KENT

In the matter of *Henderson & Kent*, Boyle J of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The applicants, Henderson and Kent, sought to have the will of the late Mr. Arthur Reginald Kent construed by the Court.

The central legal issue before Boyle J was whether the beneficiaries named in the will were entitled to receive the entirety of the residuary estate, or if a portion of it should be distributed according to the rules of intestacy. This question turned on the proper construction of the residuary clause within the will.

Boyle J applied established principles of testamentary construction, emphasizing that the primary duty of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the testator's intention as expressed in the will. His Honour examined the wording of the residuary clause, considering the context of the entire document and the surrounding circumstances at the time of its execution. The Court concluded that the language used in the will clearly indicated the testator's intention to dispose of the whole of his residuary estate to the named beneficiaries, and that there was no intestacy.

Consequently, Boyle J ordered that the residuary estate of Arthur Reginald Kent be distributed in accordance with the terms of his will, to the exclusion of the rules of intestacy.