PRICHARD -v- PRICHARD [2015] WASC 170
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 170 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2843/2012 | 11 AUGUST 2014 & 24 FEBRUARY 2015 | |
| Coram: | JENKINS J | 15/05/15 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Directions given on construction of clause 3 of the Will | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GABRIELLE MARY PRICHARD IAN SIMON PRICHARD as Executor of the Estate of KENNETH PRICHARD IAN SIMON PRICHARD PAUL JOHN PRICHARD MICHAEL KENNETH PRICHARD LOUISE ANNE PRICHARD |
Catchwords: | Succession Construction of will Hotchpot clause Whether, and if so which, advances made to children of deceased are to be brought into hotchpot |
Legislation: | Wills Act 1970 (WA), s 26, s 28A, s 32 |
Case References: | Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) [1981] HCA 20; (1981) 147 CLR 246 Keogh v Cornish [2010] WASC 129 Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Camp [No 2] [2010] WASC 207 Osborne v Landpower Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] WASCA 117 Parnell v Hinkley [2007] WASC 102 Re Hayward (deceased); Kerrod v Hayward [1957] 2 All ER 474 Re Tennant; Mortlock v Hawker [1942] HCA 3; (1942) 65 CLR 473 Taylor v Taylor (1865) LR 20 Eq 155 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
IAN SIMON PRICHARD as Executor of the Estate of KENNETH PRICHARD
First Defendant
IAN SIMON PRICHARD
Second Defendant
PAUL JOHN PRICHARD
Third Defendant
MICHAEL KENNETH PRICHARD
Fourth Defendant
LOUISE ANNE PRICHARD
Fifth Defendant
Catchwords:
Succession - Construction of will - Hotchpot clause - Whether, and if so which, advances made to children of deceased are to be brought into hotchpot
Legislation:
Wills Act 1970 (WA), s 26, s 28A, s 32
Result:
Directions given on construction of clause 3 of the Will
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : In person
First Defendant : Mr M W Fatharly
Second Defendant : In person
Third Defendant : In person
Fourth Defendant : No appearance
Fifth Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : In person
First Defendant : Kott Gunning Lawyers
Second Defendant : In person
Third Defendant : In person
Fourth Defendant : No appearance
Fifth Defendant : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) [1981] HCA 20; (1981) 147 CLR 246
Keogh v Cornish [2010] WASC 129
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Camp [No 2] [2010] WASC 207
Osborne v Landpower Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] WASCA 117
Parnell v Hinkley [2007] WASC 102
Re Hayward (deceased); Kerrod v Hayward [1957] 2 All ER 474
Re Tennant; Mortlock v Hawker [1942] HCA 3; (1942) 65 CLR 473
Taylor v Taylor (1865) LR 20 Eq 155
1 JENKINS J: This is an application for directions as…
Continue reading Prichard v Prichard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Prichard v Prichard [2015] WASC 170
- Case
- [2015] WASC 170
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Prichard v Prichard, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involved the interpretation of a will, specifically a clause known as the hotchpot clause, which deals with the distribution of assets after a person's death. The will in question contained a hotchpot clause, which stipulates that any advances made to the deceased's children must be considered when dividing the estate. The children argued that the clause did not apply to certain advances made to them, while the executor of the will contended that all relevant advances must be included.
The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the hotchpot clause in the will and determining which advances made to the children should be included in the estate division. The court had to examine the precise wording of the clause, the context in which it was written, and the intentions of the deceased as expressed in the will. This involved understanding whether the clause applied to all types of advances or only certain ones, and if the clause was clear enough to be enforced.
The court found that the hotchpot clause was ambiguous and required interpretation to discern the deceased's intentions. The judge ruled that only specific types of advances, as outlined in the will, were to be considered under the clause. The court determined that the clause was not to be applied to all advances but only to those explicitly mentioned in the will. This decision clarified which advances would be included in the estate division, providing guidance for the executor in fulfilling the terms of the will.
The court's final order was to direct the executor on the construction of clause 3 of the will, ensuring that only the specified advances were to be brought into the hotchpot. This ruling provided clarity on the application of the hotchpot clause and helped in the proper distribution of the deceased's estate according to their wishes.
The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the hotchpot clause in the will and determining which advances made to the children should be included in the estate division. The court had to examine the precise wording of the clause, the context in which it was written, and the intentions of the deceased as expressed in the will. This involved understanding whether the clause applied to all types of advances or only certain ones, and if the clause was clear enough to be enforced.
The court found that the hotchpot clause was ambiguous and required interpretation to discern the deceased's intentions. The judge ruled that only specific types of advances, as outlined in the will, were to be considered under the clause. The court determined that the clause was not to be applied to all advances but only to those explicitly mentioned in the will. This decision clarified which advances would be included in the estate division, providing guidance for the executor in fulfilling the terms of the will.
The court's final order was to direct the executor on the construction of clause 3 of the will, ensuring that only the specified advances were to be brought into the hotchpot. This ruling provided clarity on the application of the hotchpot clause and helped in the proper distribution of the deceased's estate according to their wishes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Directions given on construction of clause 3 of the Will
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.