Legal Research
Cases
Middleton v Schofield

Middleton v Schofield

Case [2022] NSWSC 1454 27 October 2022

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Middleton v Schofield [2022] NSWSC 1454
Hearing dates: 11 – 13 April 2022
Decision date: 27 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See [130 ] to [132] below.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — construction — use of extrinsic evidence — testator makes gift of named farming property by reference to proper noun and land area — whether subject matter of gift refers to one or all three of three contiguous but historically distinct farming properties — consideration of application of general law and statutory rules of admission of extrinsic evidence where Court required to determine objective meaning of testator’s use of proper noun in will

Legislation Cited:
Administration of Justice Act 1982 (UK), s 21
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 6, 27, 32

Cases Cited:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-2; [1938] HCA 34
Carrington v Wallace [2019] NSWSC 1301
De Lorenzo v De Lorenzo (2020) 104 NSWLR 155; [2020] NSWCA 351
Farrelly v Phillips (2017) 128 SASR 502; [2017] SASCFC 111
Fell v Fell (1922) 31 CLR 268
Hibbitt v Ziade [2022] NSWSC 904
In the Will and Codicil of Padbury, deceased; Home of Peace for the Dying and Incurable v Solicitor-General (1908) 7 CLR 680 at 686; [1908] HCA 72
James v Douglas [2016] NSWCA 178
Jukka Pekka Kemi v Peter Hedley Wood [2013] NSWSC 180
Layer v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 60
Parry v Haisma [2012] NSWSC 290
Partington v Rossiter [2022] Ch 43; [2021] EWCA Civ 1564
The Estate of William John Gilbert [2017] NSWSC 1138
Vescio v Bannister (Estate of the late Betty Tait) [2010] NSWSC 1274; (2010) 3 ASTLR 619
Warton v Yeo [2014] NSWSC 494
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Texts Cited:
Macquarie Dictionary, online ed

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Phillip Paul Middleton (First Plaintiff)
Chloe Elizabeth Middleton (Second Plaintiff)
Julie Evelyn Schofield (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
LJ Ellison SC & C Coventry (Plaintiffs)
WG Muddle SC & P Tierney (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Walsh & Blair Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Blaxland Mawson & Rose (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00347748

Judgment

This case concerns the proper construction of the will of the late Allan Edgar Bell (the testator), who died on 3 March 2020, leaving a last will made on 30 August 2018.
The testator never married and had no children. The plaintiffs and the other personal beneficiaries are friends and acquaintances of the deceased, upon whom he decided to confer his testamentary bounty.
The plaintiffs, Phillip Paul Middleton and Chloe Elizabeth Middleton, are a married couple who are the beneficiaries of a specific devise of real property under clause 4(j) of the will. Chloe Middleton is the granddaughter of Helen Frances Drayton, who was a long-time friend and sometime de facto partner of the testator. Through that connection, Chloe Middleton formed and maintained a personal relationship with the testator and his sister, Marie Ellen Stokes.
Probate of the will was granted by this Court to the defendant,…

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 Middleton v Schofield

Details

AGLC: Middleton v Schofield [2022] NSWSC 1454
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1454
Decision Date: 27 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Middleton v Schofield, the central issue revolved around the interpretation of a will, specifically the identification of a farming property gifted by the testator, Mr Middleton. The dispute arose among his beneficiaries, primarily between the appellants and the respondents, over whether the bequest referred to one particular property or to all three contiguous but historically distinct farming properties. The matter was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining the legal framework for interpreting the will, particularly the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in understanding the testator's intent. The primary question was whether the court could consider extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning of a proper noun used in the will to describe the property, and how this aligned with both common law and statutory provisions. The court needed to ascertain whether the evidence could assist in resolving ambiguity concerning whether the bequest referred to one specific property or all three.

The court ruled that the application of the general law and statutory rules governing the admissibility of extrinsic evidence was applicable to the interpretation of the will. It found that the evidence could be considered to determine the objective meaning of the testator's reference to the property, as the proper noun alone did not resolve the ambiguity. The court examined the context and circumstances surrounding the creation of the will, including the testator's knowledge and the historical context of the properties. Ultimately, the court concluded that the testator intended the gift to encompass all three properties based on the evidence presented. The court's interpretation aligned with the testator's probable intention, as inferred from the evidence.

The final orders of the court directed the distribution of the three farming properties among the beneficiaries in accordance with the interpreted meaning of the testator's will. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of extrinsic evidence in will construction, reinforcing the importance of considering the context and circumstances surrounding the creation of the will when determining the testator's intent.

Orders