Plunkett v Field

In Plunkett v Field, the dispute centred around the interpretation of a will drafted by the deceased, who had minimal assistance from a solicitor. The deceased created a fund for his nephew, stipulating that it "cannot be liquidated before his 35th birthday." The nephew, however, passed away at the age of 29, raising questions about whether the gift was vested in him upon the deceased's death. The court was tasked with determining the nature of the gift and whether it vested upon the deceased's death or remained contingent on the nephew reaching the age of 35.

The court addressed the legal issues by examining the approach to the construction of a will, particularly focusing on the scheme of the will and the intentions of the deceased. The court acknowledged the precedential approach but emphasised that it risks missing or perplexing the deceased's expressed intention. Instead, the court turned to case law to guide its interpretation, seeking to understand the deceased's intentions as expressed in the will. The court considered the entire will, the context in which the clause was written, and the logical implications of the language used.

After examining the will's language and the deceased's intentions, the court determined that the gift vested in the nephew upon the deceased's death. The court found that the language used in the will indicated a clear intention to vest the gift immediately, regardless of the nephew's age at the time of the deceased's death. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the will's language and the context in which it was written, ensuring that the deceased's intentions were properly reflected. The court concluded that the gift was not contingent on the nephew reaching the age of 35, but rather vested upon the deceased's death.

The final orders of the court were that the gift in the will was vested in the nephew upon the deceased's death, and was not contingent on the nephew reaching the age of 35. This determination ensured that the deceased's intentions were properly reflected and that the nephew's entitlement to the gift was not delayed by the condition of reaching a certain age.