Rogers v Jordan

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Rogers and Jordan concerning the interpretation of a will. The primary issue revolved around whether a specific bequest of shares in a company was intended to be a gift of the shares themselves, or a gift of the value of those shares at the time of the testator's death.

The court was required to determine the proper construction of the relevant clause in the testator's will, specifically whether the testator intended to give the beneficiary the shares as they existed at the time of death, or whether the testator intended to give the beneficiary a sum of money equivalent to the value of those shares at that time. This involved an analysis of the testator's language and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain their testamentary intention.

The High Court, in its reasoning, applied established principles of will construction, emphasising that the paramount consideration is the ascertainment of the testator's intention from the words used in the will. The court examined the precise wording of the bequest, considering whether it referred to the shares as specific items or as a measure of value. Ultimately, the court found that the testator's intention was to bequeath the shares themselves, not their monetary equivalent. The court noted that if the testator had intended to give a sum of money, they would have likely expressed it as a pecuniary legacy. The court therefore held that the beneficiary was entitled to the shares as they stood at the time of the testator's death.