Mackenzie v Learmonth - [2004] VSC 337

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 4966 of 2004

IN THE WILL AND ESTATE OF KEITH LEWIS MEIER deceased

RICHARD JAMES MACKENZIE (as Executor of the Will of Keith Lewis Meier deceased)	Plaintiff
V
CAROLYN ANNE LEARMONTH & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 September 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the Will and Estate of K L Meier (deceased)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 337

---

WILLS – general legacy of “a sufficient amount of money” to be held on trust for the payment of school fees of children and unborn children of certain beneficiaries – whether, to the extent that the residuary estate was insufficient, the testator intended the amount to be payable out of property specifically disposed of by the will.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr I J Hardingham QC with Mrs K R Rees	Eales & Mackenzie
For the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants	Mr J D Merralls QC with Mr R T A Waddell	Harry M Hearn
For the Fifth Defendant	No Appearance
For the Sixth Defendant	Mr S F McNab	James Higgins & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Keith Lewis Meier (“the Testator”), Retired Sales Representative, died on 2 August 2002, leaving a will dated 25 July 2002 and assets valued at about $2,860,000. Probate of the Will was granted to the plaintiff on 18 June 2003. By originating motion dated 10 March 2004 the plaintiff, in his capacity as executor and trustee of the Will, seeks the determination of a number of questions arising thereunder.

The questions have arisen as a result of the provision in cl.5 of the Will whereby the Testator gave “to my Trustee a sufficient amount of money to hold on trust” and directed his trustee “from those said moneys held on trust, to pay for the annual private school fees” of certain children. The residue will be insufficient to enable the plaintiff to set aside the full amount that an expert actuary advises to be adequate for the purpose. The questions raised include questions as to the validity of the gift in cl.5 of the Will, and as to the assets which may be drawn upon to provide the money given by cl.5 of the Will.

By cl.4 of his Will, the Testator gave pecuniary legacies of $1,000 each to a number of named persons not otherwise mentioned in the Will.

Clause 5 of the Will, as I have said, gives rise to the main questions for determination by the Court. It provides for the payment of school fees for the children (including any children born within five years of the Testator’s death) of three nieces and a nephew (the first to fourth defendants) and a friend of the Testator (the fifth defendant). The sixth defendant is joined to represent the children and unborn children. The same nieces and the nephew are also…

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 Mackenzie v Learmonth

Details

AGLC: Mackenzie v Learmonth [2004] VSC 337
Case: [2004] VSC 337
Decision Date: 9 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mackenzie v Learmonth, the dispute involved the interpretation of a general legacy in a will, which was intended to be held on trust for the payment of school fees of certain beneficiaries' children and unborn children. The residuary estate was insufficient to cover the amount specified in the legacy, leading to a question of whether the testator intended the shortfall to be met by property specifically disposed of by the will.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of the testator's intentions regarding the source of funds to meet the general legacy. Specifically, the court had to determine if the testator intended the shortfall in the residuary estate to be covered by property specifically bequeathed in the will. This required an analysis of the language used in the will, the context in which it was written, and the testator's overall intentions.

The court found that the testator's intentions were clear in that he intended the general legacy to be paid out of the residuary estate, and if insufficient, from the property specifically disposed of in the will. The language of the will, when read in its entirety and in the context of the testator's other provisions, supported this interpretation. The court concluded that the testator's intention was to ensure the payment of the school fees for the beneficiaries' children and unborn children, regardless of the source of the funds, provided it came from the estate as directed.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the general legacy was to be paid out of the residuary estate and, if necessary, from the specifically bequeathed property. This decision provided clarity for the executors and beneficiaries, ensuring that the testator's intentions were fulfilled as closely as possible.

Orders