Skinner & Cluny (No. 2)

In the matter of *Skinner & Cluny (No. 2)*, Kent J of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The applicants, Skinner and Cluny, sought to have the will of the late Mr. Arthur Reginald Skinner construed by the Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the beneficiaries named in the will were entitled to receive the entirety of the residuary estate, or if a portion of that estate was intended to be held on trust for a specific purpose that had not been fulfilled. This required the Court to ascertain the testator's intention as expressed within the four corners of the will.

Kent J's reasoning focused on the principles of testamentary construction, particularly the importance of giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used by the testator, unless such a meaning would lead to an absurd result or contradict other clear provisions of the will. His Honour examined the specific clauses of the will relating to the disposition of the residuary estate and the purported trust, concluding that the language used did not create a valid or enforceable trust over any part of the residue. The Court found that the beneficiaries were absolutely entitled to the residuary estate.