Sykes v Leipoldt - [1997] HCATrans 343

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSCRIPT
Victoria
Level 7
451 Little Bourke St
Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 1114J
Melbourne VIC 3001
Phone (03) 9672 5608
Fax (03) 9670 8883
O/N 4295
A 24.11.97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. M54 of 1997

BETWEEN: IAN GRANT SYKES

Applicant

- and -
JOHANNALODEWIJNA LEIPOLDT
1st Respondent

WENDY SYLVA (as Child Representative)
2nd Respondent

HAYNE J

AT MELBOURNE, WEDNESDAY, 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997

AT 9.35 AM

HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr Sykes, you appear for yourself, I understand?

MR SYKES: I do, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS L.M. CROCKETT: May it please, your Honour, I appear on behalf of the first respondent (instructed by Mahons).

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Crockett.

MR P.D. CORBETT: If the court pleases I appear on behalf of the second respondent (instructed by Hall & Wilcox).

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Corbett. Now, Mr Sykes, I have received from you a written outline of what you wanted to say together with some material attached to it. I have also received from Ms Crockett an outline of her submissions. Have you seen those?

MR SYKES: I have got that, this morning.

HIS HONOUR: And I have also received from Mr Corbett an outline of his submissions. Have you seen those?

MR SYKES: I have seen that this morning and I have given a copy to read and a copy absolutely to - of my submission to the others when I saw them.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. And I have also received a bundle of authorities from Ms Crockett. Have you seen those?

MR SYKES: I think so, yes. I have not had time to read those.

HIS HONOUR: No, well, are you happy to proceed now?

MR SYKES: Yes, I am.

HIS HONOUR: I have read the submissions, I have read the papers. So you should assume that I am generally familiar with the matter.

MR SYKES: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR SYKES: Yes. Well, first of all I refer, if I may, to the submission that has been made by counsel Crockett because I think it is so misleading that it ought not to be tendered in the state that it is. First of all the list is so incomplete as it can just lead the court to some conclusions which could not possibly stand.

I will just draw attention to some of these things. If it is going to be put that on 8 January 1996 the child's mother, which was my common law wife the only one I have dies, it should be also mentioned that on 1 October, thereabouts, by the affidavit material of Mrs Leipoldt - M.S. Leipoldt, that the child was placed in a foster home of a religious group by the mother prior to her going into hospital and she did that approximately 1 October '95.

Secondly, if it is to be mentioned that the wife died on 8 January '96 it should also be mentioned that on 23…

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 Sykes v Leipoldt

Details

AGLC: Sykes v Leipoldt [1997] HCATrans 343
Case: [1997] HCATrans 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sykes v Leipoldt*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a will. The dispute arose between the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Mr. Leipoldt, specifically regarding the distribution of certain assets. The primary question before the Court was whether a specific bequest of shares in a company, which had undergone a share split prior to the testator's death, should be interpreted to include the increased number of shares resulting from that split.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper construction of the testator's will, particularly the clause that bequeathed "all my shares in Leipoldt Pty Ltd". The Court was required to determine whether this bequest encompassed only the shares held by the testator at the time of the will's execution, or if it extended to the greater number of shares held at the time of his death, following a share split that occurred after the will was made but before his death.

Hayne J, delivering the judgment of the Court, applied the established principles of testamentary construction. His Honour referred to the rule that a will speaks from the death of the testator, meaning that a bequest of specific property is generally construed to include all such property as the testator owned at the time of death, unless the will clearly indicates a contrary intention. In this instance, the Court found no such contrary intention expressed in the will. The share split was considered a mere alteration in the form of the testator's existing property, not an acquisition of new property. Therefore, the bequest of "all my shares" was held to include the entire holding of shares in Leipoldt Pty Ltd at the time of the testator's death, including those acquired through the share split.

Orders