Legal Research
Cases
Pringle v Pringle

Pringle v Pringle

Case [2010] WASC 206 17 August 2010

Testamentary Instruments

Probate

Misdescriptions of Property

Objective Ascertainment of Intention

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PRINGLE -v- PRINGLE [2010] WASC 206

CORAM: KENNETH MARTIN J

HEARD: 31 MAY 2010

DELIVERED : 17 AUGUST 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 2748 of 2009

MATTER :Section 45 of the Administration Act 1903 and
the Will and Estate of EDITH GRACE PRINGLE late of RMB 1324 Styx Road, Denmark in the State of Western Australia (Dec)

BETWEEN: ALLAN BRUCE WILLIAM PRINGLE as Executor of the Estate of EDITH GRACE PRINGLE PRINGLE
Plaintiff
AND
ALLAN BRUCE WILLIAM PRINGLE
First Defendant
NEIL PAUL PRINGLE
Second Defendant
IAN DAVID PRINGLE
Third Defendant
MARGARET RUTH BANNISTER
Fourth Defendant
BEVERLY ANNE FAUNTLEROY
Fifth Defendant
ELIZA ANN HOWLETT
Sixth Defendant
GREGORY CHRISTOPHER JOHN WARD
Seventh Defendant
DEREK JOHN MILLIGAN
Eighth Defendant
GLENN ALEXANDER MILLIGAN
Ninth Defendant
CARLEEN GRACE GILLESPIE
Tenth Defendant

Catchwords:

Testamentary instruments - Construction - Will and codicil - Probate granted - Misdescriptions of property - Objective ascertainment of testamentary intention from instruments and surrounding circumstances

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA), s 45
Wills Act 1970 (WA)
Wills Amendment Act 2007 (WA), s 22, s 28

Result:

Answers provided on s 45, Administration Act 1903 application

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Ms S E Bruce
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant           :     No appearance
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     No appearance
Sixth Defendant            :     No appearance
Seventh Defendant        :     No appearance
Eighth Defendant          :     No appearance
Ninth Defendant           :     No appearance
Tenth Defendant           :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Jackson McDonald
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant           :     Corser & Corser
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     In person
Sixth Defendant            :     In person
Seventh Defendant        :     In person
Eighth Defendant          :     In person
Ninth Defendant           :     In person
Tenth Defendant           :     In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bakranich v Robertson [2005] WASC 12
Boyes v Cook (1880) 14 Ch D 53
Brennan v Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales [1945] HCA 17; (1945) 73 CLR 404
Dalton v Dalton [2008] WASC 56
Higgins v Dawson [1902] AC 1
Mustard v Oikonomov (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980468, 19 August 1998)
Parnell v Hinkley [2007] WASC 102
Perrin v Morgan [1943] AC 399
Re the Estate of Collins (No 2) [2000] NSWSC 407
Ritchie v Magree [1964] HCA 10; (1964) 114 CLR 173

KENNETH MARTIN J: Edith Grace Pringle died on 27 November 2005 aged approximately 88 years.
Mrs Pringle left a will made on 31 August 2000, with some later adjustments by way of a codicil instrument of 19 October 2000. A grant of probate was made in respect of Mrs Pringle's will and the codicil on 13 July 2007.
Difficulties have arisen over to the interpretation of some provisions within these testamentary instruments, with the consequence that the executor has sought directions of the court, pursuant to s 45 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA).
Mrs Pringle was married to her…

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 Pringle v Pringle

Details

AGLC: Pringle v Pringle [2010] WASC 206
Case: [2010] WASC 206
Decision Date: 17 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute over the interpretation of a will and codicil in the estate of the deceased, with the plaintiff, Pringle, seeking to challenge the validity of the codicil. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the misdescriptions in the codicil were sufficient to render it invalid, or if they could be corrected to reflect the testator's intention. The court was also required to determine whether the surrounding circumstances could be considered to ascertain the testator's intention.

The court considered the objective approach to the interpretation of testamentary instruments, which involves examining the instruments and surrounding circumstances to determine the testator's intention. The court noted that misdescriptions in a codicil may be corrected if they can be identified with certainty and if the correction does not alter the testator's intention. The court found that the misdescriptions in the codicil were not so significant as to render it invalid, and that the surrounding circumstances supported the correction of the misdescriptions to reflect the testator's intention. The court also noted that the testator's intention was to make a specific bequest to the plaintiff, and that the misdescriptions did not alter this intention.

Accordingly, the court granted probate of the will and codicil, with the misdescriptions corrected to reflect the testator's intention. The court held that the objective approach to the interpretation of testamentary instruments, which involves examining the instruments and surrounding circumstances, is the appropriate approach in this case. The court also noted that the surrounding circumstances can be considered to ascertain the testator's intention, and that misdescriptions in a codicil may be corrected if they can be identified with certainty and if the correction does not alter the testator's intention. The court's decision was that the codicil was valid and should be given effect, with the misdescriptions corrected to reflect the testator's intention.

Orders