McRobert v McRobert - [1920] HCA 5

GEORGE McROBERT AND ANOTHER

WILLIAM McROBERT

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WillConstruction--Reasonable meaning of words.

By his will a testator stated that he wished twenty-five shillings a week MELBOURNE, to be paid to each of his two sisters and also" to his brother " if so needed."

Held, that the words "if so needed did not apply to the payments to the Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Mann J.) affirmed.

27 CLR 332

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The will, dated 17th June 1905, of George McRobert, who died

McROBERT on 21st June 1905, contained the following provision (inter alia) McROBERT. "I wish, twenty-five shillings a week, be paid to each of my two

sisters, Jane McRobert and Barbara McRobert of Aberchirder, Scotland and also Peter McRobert Kingower Victoria if SO needed." Peter McRobert was a brother of the testator. The three bene- ficiaries mentioned in that provision survived the testator, each of the two sisters being then over seventy years of age, and the executors of the will, George McRobert and Donald Ross McRobert, paid the sum of twenty-five shillings a week to them until 7th July 1914. The two sisters died in Scotland on 24th April 1917 and 20th April 1917 respectively, and William McRobert, who was the executor of their wills, made a claim on the executors of the testator George McRobert for payment of the arrears of the weekly sums of twenty- five shillings. That claim was resisted on the ground that the executors ceased to make any further payments, believing that the two sisters were not in need of them. The executors accordingly took out an originating summons in the Supreme Court, to which William McRobert was made defendant, asking, among other questions, the question 'Do the words if SO needed apply to the gift to the sisters Jane and Barbara McRobert ? " The summons was heard by Mann J., who answered that question in the nega- tive.

From the decision of Mann J. the executors of George McRobert appealed to the High Court on the grounds (inter alia) that the words " if SO needed" upon the face of the will applied to all three legacies, or alternatively that those words were equivocal or ambigu- ous, and that extrinsic evidence (which should have been admitted) showed that they applied to all three legacies, and that the words enabled the executors to exercise a discretion from time to time, or alternatively imposed a condition upon the gift which was not complied with.

H. Walker and Owen Dixon, for the appellants, referred to Child V. Elsworth 1.

12 DeG. M. &G., 679.

27 CLR 333

Weigall K.C. (with him Stanley Lewis), for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult. The judgment of the COURT, which was read by ISAACS J., was McROBERT. as follows

The meaning of the third clause of this home-made will is not very clear as to whether the words "…

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 McRobert v McRobert

Details

AGLC: McRobert v McRobert [1920] HCA 5
Case: [1920] HCA 5
Decision Date: 1 March 1920

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a clause in the will of George McRobert, who died in 1905. The executors of the will, George McRobert and Donald Ross McRobert, sought clarification from the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding a provision that stated: "I wish, twenty-five shillings a week, be paid to each of my two sisters, Jane McRobert and Barbara McRobert of Aberchirder, Scotland and also Peter McRobert Kingower Victoria if SO needed." The dispute arose when the executors ceased payments to the sisters after their deaths, believing they were not in need, and the executor of the sisters' wills, William McRobert, claimed arrears. The executors appealed to the High Court of Australia after the Supreme Court, per Mann J., found that the words "if so needed" did not apply to the sisters' legacies.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the phrase "if so needed" in the testator's will applied to the bequests made to his two sisters, Jane and Barbara McRobert, or only to the bequest to his brother, Peter McRobert. The appellants, the executors, argued that the phrase applied to all three legacies, or alternatively, that the phrase was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence should have been admitted to demonstrate that it applied to all three, thereby granting the executors discretion or imposing a condition on the gifts.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the interpretation of the will should be based solely on the plain meaning of the words used, without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Court analysed the structure of the clause, noting that the phrase "and also" before the mention of Peter McRobert, followed by "if so needed," indicated a break in thought and a qualification specifically attached to the brother's legacy. The Court concluded that the testator's intention, as expressed in the will, was to provide an unqualified weekly payment to each sister and a qualified payment to his brother. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court.

Orders