MALLARD & HERBERT

In the matter of *MALLARD & HERBERT*, Willis J of the Supreme Court of Victoria was required to determine a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The applicants, Mallard and Herbert, sought to have the will of the late Mr. Arthur Reginald Herbert construed by the Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the beneficiaries named in the will were entitled to receive the entirety of the residuary estate, or if a portion of that estate was intended to pass on intestacy. This question turned on the proper construction of the residuary clause within the will and the effect of a subsequent codicil.

Willis J considered the principles of will construction, particularly the presumption against intestacy and the importance of giving effect to the testator's clear intentions. His Honour analysed the language of the will and the codicil, concluding that the testator had intended to dispose of the whole of his residuary estate to the named beneficiaries. The Court found that the wording of the codicil, when read in conjunction with the original will, did not create an intestacy in respect of any part of the residuary estate.

The Court ordered that the residuary estate of the late Arthur Reginald Herbert was to be distributed in accordance with the terms of the will and codicil, and not to pass on intestacy.