Webster v Webster

In *Webster v Webster*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a will and the distribution of an estate. The primary dispute revolved around whether a specific bequest of shares in a company, which had undergone a significant corporate restructure prior to the testator's death, should be interpreted as referring to the shares as they existed at the time of the will's execution or as they were constituted following the restructure. The case came before the High Court on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the testator's intention, as expressed in the will, was to bequeath the specific number of shares held at the time of the will's creation, or the shares that represented the testator's interest in the company at the time of death, notwithstanding the alteration in the company's share structure. This required the court to determine how to construe a testamentary gift of shares when the subject matter of the gift has been fundamentally altered by corporate action between the making of the will and the testator's death.

Gaudron and Kirby JJ, in their joint judgment, applied established principles of testamentary construction, emphasising the paramount importance of ascertaining the testator's intention from the words used in the will, read in light of the surrounding circumstances. They considered the doctrine of ademption and its application to gifts of specific property that has undergone a change. The judges concluded that the testator's intention was to pass on their proprietary interest in the company, rather than a specific, static number of shares. Therefore, the bequest was to be construed as referring to the shares held by the testator in the company at the time of their death, which represented their continuing interest in the enterprise, despite the corporate restructure.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for further orders consistent with the High Court's judgment.