McDonnell v Neil - [1951] HCA 4

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lords Simonds, Morton of Henryton, MacDermott, Radcliffe and Tucker

McDONNELL v. NEIL

(1951) 82 CLR 275

6 March 1951

Will

Will—Construction—Residuary estate—Gift to testator's "daughters for life in equal shares with remainder in fee to their issue in equal shares, their grandchildren, if any, taking per stirpes"—Per capita or per stirpes.

Decision

March 6.
LORD SIMONDS delivered the judgment of their Lordships as follows: - This appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Australia raises a question of construction of the will of William McDonald, who died on 11th June 1904, and was survived by his daughters Grace, the widow of Percy Stanislaus McDonnell, and Emily, then a spinster. (at p276)

2. By his will, which was dated 11th September 1902, the testator made certain specific devises and bequests as follows (a) his residence and land at Inverary, Concord upon trust for his daughter Grace McDonnell for life with remainder in fee for her children and issue upon the trusts therein declared with a trust over in favour of his daughter Emily and her children (b) his furniture and other chattels in and about Inverary (with certain exceptions) to his daughter Grace (c) his house and forty acres of land at Medlow to his daughter Emily for life with remainder in fee to her children and issue upon the trusts therein declared with a trust over in favour of his daughter Grace and her children as therein mentioned. The testator then devised and bequeathed the residue of his real and personal estate upon trust (subject to certain annuities thereinafter mentioned) in the following terms which have given rise to the present dispute, viz.: "for my said two daughters Grace McDonnell and Emily Sarah McDonald for life in equal shares with remainder in fee to their issue in equal shares their grandchildren if any taking per stirpes". He then charged his residue with certain annuities, some of which are still subsisting, and made certain other provisions not material to the present question. (at p276)

3. At the date of his will and of his death the state of the testator's family was as follows: - (a) his daughter Grace (who was born on 20th December 1860) was a widow with three children, viz., the appellant Stanley Augustine McDonnell (who was born on 26th April 1893) Wilfred (who was born on 10th March 1895) and the appellant Ines Marie Augusta Campbell (who was born on 14th April 1897). Grace had had one other child only, viz., Percy McDonnell who died an infant in 1892; (b) his daughter Emily (who was born on 11th August 1865) was a spinster. (at p276)

4. On 21st September 1904, shortly after the testator's death, his daughter Emily married one Darvall. By him she had one child, the respondent Ena Gertrude, who married one Neil. Emily died on 8th June 1937. (at p277)

5. Of the children of the testator's daughter Grace Wilfred predeceased her leaving one child John Arthur Xavier…

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 McDonnell v Neil 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: [1951] HCA 4
Decision Date: 6 March 1951

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *McDonnell v Neil* concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of certain property. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had acquired a valid legal title to the property in question, notwithstanding certain alleged irregularities in the process by which that title was obtained. This involved an examination of the relevant statutory provisions governing the transfer of property and the effect of any non-compliance with those provisions.

The High Court considered the principles of land law and the requirements for indefeasibility of title under the relevant legislation. Their Lordships analysed the circumstances of the transaction and the nature of the respondent's claim to ownership. The Court ultimately determined that the respondent had not acquired a valid legal title to the property.

Consequently, the High Court made orders in favour of the appellant, effectively setting aside the purported transfer of the property to the respondent.

Orders