Thompson v Craigie

In *Thompson v Craigie*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a will. The primary issue before the court was whether a specific bequest of a property to the testator's son, the respondent, had lapsed due to the son predeceasing the testator. The appellant, the executor of the will, sought directions from the court regarding the distribution of the residuary estate.

The central legal question was whether the provisions of section 33 of the *Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898* (NSW) applied to the bequest. This section provides that a gift to a child or remoter descendant of the testator who predeceases the testator shall not lapse if the beneficiary leaves issue who survive the testator. The court had to determine if the respondent, the son, qualified as a "child" for the purposes of this section and if his issue, who did survive the testator, were entitled to take the property.

The Court of Appeal, applying the principles of statutory interpretation, held that the term "child" in section 33 of the *Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898* (NSW) included a son. As the respondent's son (the testator's grandson) survived the testator, the bequest to the respondent did not lapse. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind section 33 was to prevent unintended intestacy where a beneficiary who was a direct descendant of the testator died before them, leaving issue.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the primary judge. The property bequeathed to the respondent was to be distributed to his issue, in accordance with section 33 of the Act.