May v Dickson

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between May and Dickson concerning the interpretation of a will. The primary issue before the Court was whether a specific bequest of shares in a company, which had undergone a share split prior to the testator's death, should be construed as referring to the original number of shares or the increased number of shares resulting from the split.

The Court was required to determine the proper construction of the testamentary instrument in light of the share split. Specifically, the legal question was whether the testator's intention, as expressed in the will, was to bequeath a fixed number of shares or a proportion of their shareholding in the company, notwithstanding the alteration in the number of shares due to the corporate action.

The High Court held that the bequest should be construed as referring to the increased number of shares. Their Honours reasoned that the testator's intention was to dispose of their entire holding in the company, and the share split was a mere alteration in the form of that holding, not a change in its substance. The Court applied the principle that a will should be construed so as to give effect to the testator's intention, and where a specific asset is bequeathed, subsequent changes in its form should not alter the subject matter of the bequest unless the testator's intention to the contrary is clear.

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Supreme Court of Queensland was set aside. The High Court declared that the bequest of shares was to be construed as referring to the shares held by the testator in the company at the time of their death, after the share split.