In the matter of Leys - [2000] VSC 164

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 6939 of 1999

IN THE MATTER of the Will of IAN HENRY LEYS, late of "Hyde Park", Burnbank, Victoria, Grazier deceased

DAVID CHARLES EDMONSTON and GEOFFREY ARTHUR FORSTER (who sue as Executors of the Will and Trustees of the Estate of the above named deceased.)	Plaintiffs
v
FRIENDS OF HENRY GEORGE INCORPORATED and Ors	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 April 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 May 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	IMO Leys
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 164

---

Will – devise of land – interpretation – incomplete description – extrinsic evidence – further devise of land in part false description – falsa demonstratio – devise of land subject to mortgage – gift to residue subject to payment of, inter alia, "all my just debts" – mortgage debt to be discharged out of property the subject of devise and not residue.

Administration and Probate Act 1958 s.40

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M. Pascoe	Ian McMillan
The Second Defendant appeared on his own behalf
The Third Defendant appeared on her own behalf
The Fifth Defendant appeared on his own behalf

HIS HONOUR:

In these proceedings, which were commenced by Originating Motion, the plaintiffs as executors of the will and trustees of the estate of Ian Henry Leys, deceased, ("the testator") seek to have the court determine and answer a number of questions concerning the true construction of clause 6 of the will of the testator and also questions that have arisen in the administration of his estate.

The deceased died on 24 October 1997, leaving a will executed on 3 June 1993. Probate of the testator's will was granted to the plaintiffs by order on 4 May 1998. By clause 3 of the testator's will he made a number of specific monetary bequests to a person and organisations therein identified. By clause 4 of the will, the testator devised land therein identified, absolutely to the first plaintiff and Loretta Edmontson and further bequeathed chattels to them. By clause 5 of the will the testator devised land identified therein as "Crown Allotment 62B, 63A, 63B, 63B2 and 63C1 containing approximately 202 acres" to Graeme Walter Cheeseman and Jeanette Louise Cheeseman as joint tenants for their lives and upon their death to two named beneficiaries. By clause 6 of the will the testator provided –

"I give devise and bequeath my real estate known as 'Mine Plain' and 'Glen Heath' being 1 acre 1 rood 27 perches contained in Certificate of Title Volume 8614 Folio 327, one acre 1 rood 30 perches contained in Certificate of Title Volume 6937 Folio 226, 301 acres 2 roods contained in Certificate of Title Volume 6671 Folio 012, 5 acres 23 perches contained in Certificate of Title Volume 8477 Folio 525 together with allotment 62A containing 80 acres described in Certificate of Title Volume 4165 Folio 873 to Barry John Cheeseman and Alice…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read In the matter of Leys and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSC 164
Decision Date: 3 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the estate of the late Thomas Ley, the executors of the will were called to clarify the interpretation of certain clauses in his will. The dispute primarily revolved around the devise of land, the payment of debts, and the proper interpretation of ambiguous descriptions within the will. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with resolving these issues.

The court was required to decide whether the will's description of the land was sufficiently clear to be enforceable and whether extrinsic evidence could be used to clarify any ambiguities. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the bequest of the land was subject to any mortgages and the extent to which the debts should be satisfied from the estate. The court also needed to interpret the phrase "all my just debts" and whether it encompassed debts secured by a mortgage on the land.

The court found that the description of the land in the will was incomplete, but the court could refer to extrinsic evidence to clarify the description. The court held that the bequest of the land was subject to the existing mortgage and that the debt secured by the mortgage should be discharged from the land itself and not from the residue of the estate. The court interpreted the phrase "all my just debts" to mean debts that were legally enforceable and owed by the testator at the time of death, including those secured by a mortgage on the land. The court ruled that the residue of the estate was not liable for the mortgage debt.

The court ordered that the land be sold to discharge the mortgage, and the remaining proceeds be distributed according to the will. The residue of the estate was to be distributed free of the mortgage debt. This decision provided clarity on the interpretation of ambiguous descriptions in wills and the proper allocation of debts in the context of estate distribution.

Orders