Redman v Hage

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding the interpretation of a testator's will and codicil. The dispute arose over the disposition of a farm at Cook's River, which the testator, William Redman, had by his will devised to his wife for her natural life, with the remainder in fee simple to his brother, Robert Redman. A subsequent codicil introduced a provision stating that "At the death of my said wife all property real taken under this or my former will to be devised by her in any way she pleases to all or any one or more of my brothers and sisters she may think proper or on their death to any of their children." The question before the court was whether this provision in the codicil operated to defeat the remainder interest granted to Robert Redman by the will.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the general words used in the codicil, "all property real taken under this or my former will," were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to revoke or cut down the prior specific gift of the Cook's River farm in remainder to Robert Redman. The appellant argued that a clear and distinct intention was required to revoke a prior absolute gift, while the respondents contended that the codicil's language effectively achieved this.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, held that the provision in the codicil did indeed operate to defeat the gift in remainder to Robert Redman. The court reasoned that the testator clearly intended the codicil's direction to apply to property taken under his former will. While acknowledging the principle that a prior absolute gift can only be revoked by clear words, the court found that the phrase "all property real taken under this or my former will" was sufficiently clear in its context. The court interpreted this phrase to refer to property of which the wife had or was entitled to have enjoyment under the will or codicil at the time of her death, and that this designation of property was not limited by the quantity of the estate taken. Therefore, the Cook's River property, which the wife enjoyed for life under the will, fell within the scope of the codicil's provision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded their costs as between solicitor and client, to be paid out of the estate.