Trust Company of Australia Limited v Krannin

The matter of Trust Company of Australia Limited v Krannin involved the interpretation of a will and the effect of a codicil that altered the testamentary dispositions of the deceased. The dispute centred around clause 6(a) of the will dated 24 November 1965, as modified by a codicil dated 15 July 1968. The court was required to determine the validity and effect of this clause, particularly in light of the testator’s divorce and the subsequent impossibility of complying with the terms of the will.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the codicil rendered clause 6(a) void for uncertainty, and if so, how the residue of the estate should be distributed in light of this uncertainty. The court considered the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to ascertain the testator's intention and the application of the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. It was also necessary to determine the impact of the testator’s divorce on the disposition and whether the clause lapsed due to the impossibility of its execution.

The court held that clause 6(a) of the will, as modified by the codicil, was void for uncertainty because it was impossible to comply with the terms of the gift. The court emphasised that the clause was ambiguous on its face and that the testator’s divorce made the disposition impossible to execute. The court found that it was unnecessary to decide the admissibility of extrinsic evidence as the clause was inherently uncertain. Consequently, the court declared that the residue of the estate, which would have passed under the void clause, should be distributed proportionately between the parts disposed of by clauses 6(b) and 6(c). The court further ordered that the costs of each party be assessed on the indemnity basis and paid out of the estate.