In the Estate of Gagliardi

CITATION:In the Estate of Gagliardi [2020] NTSC 74
PARTIES:IN THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL GAGLIARDI
ON REFERENCE from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory at Alice Springs

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2020-03075-SC
DELIVERED:  2 December 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Riley AJ
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril2002
Number of pages:  2

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
In the Estate of Gagliardi [2020] NTSC 74

No. 2020-03075-SC
IN THE ESTATE OF GAGLIARDI

ON REFERENCE FROM THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY AT ALICE SPRINGS

CORAM: RILEY AJ
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered 2 December 2020)

The Registrar referred this matter to the Supreme Court pursuant to

s 17(2)(c) of the Administration and Probate Act1969 (NT).
Two years before his death the deceased, Michael Gagliardi, executed two brief Wills, the first dated 2 July 2018 and the second dated 17 July 2018. The Wills were each created using a so-called “Will Kit”.
In the first Will the first name of the deceased is incorrectly spelt as “Michel” rather than “Michael”. That Will names six intended beneficiaries accompanied by the phrase “to be distributed equal”. In the second Will the deceased named the same six intended beneficiaries but neglected to specify how the estate was to be distributed.
In an affidavit the solicitor for Peter Gagliardi, the executor named in each Will, submitted that it was clear from a comparison between the first Will and the second Will that it was the intention of the testator that the class of beneficiaries common to both Wills receive equal distributions from the estate.
In my opinion it is tolerably clear from the second Will read alone that the intention of the testator was that the identified persons were to receive equal distributions from the estate.
Should there be any doubt about that conclusion then the Will would either be meaningless or ambiguous and, in those circumstances, reference may be had to s 31 of the Wills Act2000 (NT) which permits resort to extrinsic evidence to construe a Will. The extrinsic evidence in this case is the former Will which makes the intention of the testator clear.
The Registrar should proceed with the application accordingly.

------------------------------------

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was asked to determine the correct interpretation of two wills executed by Michael Gagliardi. The first will, dated 2 July 2018, misspelled the deceased's first name as "Michel" and indicated an equal distribution of the estate among six beneficiaries. The second will, dated 17 July 2018, named the same beneficiaries but did not specify how the estate was to be distributed. The solicitor for Peter Gagliardi, the executor named in both wills, argued that the testator intended for the beneficiaries to receive equal distributions from the estate. The court was tasked with deciding whether the second will alone clearly expressed the testator's intention for equal distribution and, if not, whether extrinsic evidence could be considered to clarify the testator's intent.

The court found that the second will, when read independently, sufficiently indicated the testator's intent for equal distribution among the beneficiaries. However, the court acknowledged that if there were any doubts, section 31 of the Wills Act 2000 (NT) would allow for the use of extrinsic evidence to interpret the will. In this case, the first will served as such extrinsic evidence, confirming the testator's intent for equal distribution. Consequently, the court ruled that the second will should be interpreted in light of the first will, ensuring that the beneficiaries received equal shares from the estate. The court's decision was based on the principle of interpreting wills in a manner that aligns with the testator's clear intentions, even if the wording of the will itself is ambiguous.

The final outcome was that the Registrar should proceed with the application in accordance with the court's interpretation, ensuring that the beneficiaries received equal distributions from the estate as per the testator's intention. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting wills to reflect the true intentions of the testator, and where necessary, the use of extrinsic evidence to achieve this goal. The orders were made to allow the application to proceed with the understanding that the beneficiaries would receive equal shares from the estate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established