HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barwick C.J., Menzies and Gibbs JJ.
LEWIS v. O'LOUGHLIN
12 November 1971
Wills
Wills—Construction—Home-made will—Bequest of "the total sum of my monetary investments"—Whether bequest includes interest of testatrix in unadministered estate of &hich she was sole beneficiary.
Decisions
November 12.
The following written judgments were delivered:
BARWICK C.J. The testatrix, who died on 23rd July 1968, at the age of sixty-eight, made her last will on 18th August 1967. Her father had three daughters, of whom the testatrix was at the date of the death of her niece, Phoebe, the sole survivor. One of her sisters had married Herbert Matthews who died in 1966. They had one daughter, Phoebe Dawn Matthews who died on 15th July 1967 intestate. Thus at the date of her will, the testatrix, according niece, Phoebe. She was also a life tenant in a trust fund set up Matthews, at the date of her death, was entitled to the whole of the estate of her grandfather Charles George Thomas Whittle. The assets of that estate at the date of the death of Phoebe Matthews comprised Commonwealth Inscribed Stock, shares in co-operative and public companies, a loan of money secured by mortgage of land and money in a bank account. Phoebe Dawn Matthews was also entitled at the date of her death to the whole of the estate of her father, Herbert Matthews. That estate at that time comprised a sum of $13,499.38 held by the Public Trustee, two parcels of land at Crafers in the State of South Australia, a motor car and certain furniture and effects valued at $454.40 which had been taken by the testatrix into her possession before her niece's death and sold, the proceeds being in the testatrix's hands at the time of her death. (at p323)
2. At the date of the will the testatrix herself held money in several banks, had money invested in bonds and debentures, shares in public ompanies and units in a South Australia Flexible Trust. At the date of her death, apart from her interest in the estate of Phoebe Dawn Matthews and through that estate in the estate of Charles George Thomas Whittle, the testatrix had the said money in banks, the said investments and in addition was entitled to - (i) accrued salary, holiday pay and long service leave in respect of her employment with an Adelaide firm; (ii) a sum due to her by the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of Group Tax and provisional tax; (iii) an amount of income in respect of her life estate in the said fund accrued but unpaid. She also had a house, furniture and effects, furs, jewellery and a motor car. (at p323)
3. The testatrix drew her own will which was typewritten in the following terms, the underlining All expressions printed in capital letters were underlined in the will. being that of the testatrix.
"THIS IS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of me MELVA RENE KING of…
Continue reading Lewis v O'Loughlin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lewis v O'Loughlin [1971] HCA 53
- Case
- [1971] HCA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning a dispute between Lewis and O'Loughlin. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent, O'Loughlin, had been contributorily negligent in the circumstances of the accident. This required the Court to assess the degree of care expected of a reasonable driver in O'Loughlin's position and to determine if his actions fell below that standard, thereby contributing to his injuries.
The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the events leading up to the collision. It applied the principles of contributory negligence, which require a plaintiff to have failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and that such failure contributed to their damage. The Court found that O'Loughlin had not been contributorily negligent, as his actions were those of a reasonable driver in the circumstances and did not contribute to the accident.
The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent, O'Loughlin, had been contributorily negligent in the circumstances of the accident. This required the Court to assess the degree of care expected of a reasonable driver in O'Loughlin's position and to determine if his actions fell below that standard, thereby contributing to his injuries.
The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the events leading up to the collision. It applied the principles of contributory negligence, which require a plaintiff to have failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and that such failure contributed to their damage. The Court found that O'Loughlin had not been contributorily negligent, as his actions were those of a reasonable driver in the circumstances and did not contribute to the accident.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.