In re Hood - [2004] VSC 328

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6111 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of VIOLET ETHELINE ANNIE HOOD, deceased

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the General Rules of Procedure for the determination of questions arising in the administration of the estate

STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (as the Executor of the Will of the deceased)	Plaintiff
v
GWENETH ANNIE MARGARET HALL & OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 and 18 June 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 September 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In Re Hood
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 328

---

Administration of estate – construction of will – meaning of "principal place of residence at the time of my death".

Wills Act 1958 (Vic), s. 22A.

Roddy v Fitzgerald (1858) 6 HL Cas 823, considered.

Re Powell (1982) 31 SASR 361, considered.

Re Baulkhorn (unreported) 26 November 1993, Supreme Court of Queensland [BC 9303071], considered.

Re Willis [1996] 2 Qd R 664, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiff

Mr R Phillips

State Trustees Ltd

For the First to Fourth Defendants

For the Fifth & Sixth Defendants

Ms C Sparke

Mr R Cook

Graeme Bloom Cunningham & Co

Purcell & Purcell

HER HONOUR:

Background

This proceeding has been brought by the executor of the estate of Violet Etheline Annie Hood ("the deceased"), who died on 7 May 2001, aged 98 years. The executor seeks the determination of certain questions arising in the administration of the deceased's estate.

The deceased made her last will on 4 July 1996 ("the will"), when she was a 93 year old widow. By the will, the deceased appointed her nephew, Allan Thomas Hird, and a nephew by marriage, Maxwell Bennett Campbell, to be her executors. Mr Hird subsequently authorised the plaintiff to act as executor. On 31 January 2002 the plaintiff obtained probate pursuant to s.10(1)(a) of the Trustee Companies Act 1984, with leave reserved to Mr Campbell to come in and prove.

By the will, the deceased left her property at 26 Monash St, Footscray ("the Monash St property") "or such property as is my principal place of residence at the date of my death" to be sold and the net proceeds to be divided equally between 2 of her grandsons, Bruce Raymond Hood and Phillip Mark Hood, the fifth and sixth defendants ("the Hoods"). The Hoods are the sons of the deceased's late son, Ray Hood, who died in 1974.

The will provided that her residuary estate was to be divided equally between the Hoods and the deceased's 3 other grandsons, Stuart Hall, Ross Hall and Craig Hall, the second to fourth defendants respectively ("the Halls"). The Halls are the sons of the deceased's daughter, Gweneth Annie Harriet Hall, the first defendant.

Gweneth Hall receives no benefit under the will. In Supreme Court proceeding No 4750 of 2002 Mrs Hall seeks provision out…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading In re Hood

Details

AGLC: In re Hood [2004] VSC 328
Case: [2004] VSC 328
Decision Date: 2 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of In re Hood was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the principal issue was the interpretation of the phrase "principal place of residence at the time of my death" within the context of a will. The dispute arose due to differing interpretations of where the deceased had resided at the time of their death, which had implications for the distribution of the estate. The court was tasked with determining the correct meaning of the phrase in question and its application to the circumstances of the deceased.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "principal place of residence at the time of my death" as used in the deceased's will. The court had to decide whether this term referred to the location where the deceased was physically present at the moment of death or whether it could encompass other locations where the deceased had established a significant connection or residence prior to their death. The case drew on various authorities, including Roddy v Fitzgerald, Re Powell, Re Baulkhorn, and Re Willis, to assist in the interpretation of the statutory provision and the will.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the legislative intent behind the phrase "principal place of residence at the time of my death" as well as the surrounding circumstances of the deceased's life. The court found that the term should be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the deceased's intentions and the ordinary meaning of the words used. After reviewing the evidence and the relevant authorities, the court concluded that the term referred to the location where the deceased had established a significant connection or residence, rather than solely the physical location at the exact moment of death. This interpretation was consistent with the broader objectives of the Wills Act 1958 (Vic) and the principles of equity.

The court's interpretation led to a specific outcome regarding the distribution of the deceased's estate. The final orders of the court reflected this interpretation, directing that the estate be distributed according to the provisions of the will, as interpreted by the court. The court's decision provided clarity on the meaning of the contested phrase and ensured that the distribution of the estate aligned with the deceased's intentions.

Orders