Re Thomson

The case of Re Thomson involved the interpretation of a will, focusing on the disposition of assets to the “children” of the deceased's siblings. The dispute arose as the children of the deceased's siblings did not survive the deceased's daughter. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was the ascertainment of the testator's intention in using the term “children,” particularly whether it referred to the first generation of descendants or a more expansive lineage. The court had to determine the proper distribution of the estate in light of the partial intestacy that resulted from the ambiguous wording of the will.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the ordinary meaning of the word “children” within the context of the will. It considered dictionary definitions and precedents to ascertain that “children” typically refers to the immediate descendants of a person, rather than their grandchildren or more distant relatives. This conclusion was influenced by the need to interpret the will in a way that aligned with the testator’s likely intention, given the absence of other specific guidance in the document. The court found that the term “children” should be understood to mean the first generation of descendants, leading to the conclusion that the intended beneficiaries were the deceased's niece and nephews, who did not survive the deceased's daughter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria resolved the dispute by directing that the property held in trust as to three quarters of the estate be distributed to the personal representatives of Edward Joseph Shine, Ellen Mary Watson, Annie Catherine Shine, James Joseph Shine, and Mary Agnes Ryan, who were the children of the deceased's siblings. The court ordered that the applicants' costs be paid on an indemnity basis from the estate. This decision ensures that the estate is distributed in accordance with the testator's likely intention, as interpreted by the court.