Wells v Matthews - [1914] HCA 50

MATTHEWS AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Contract-Evidence-Promise - to make gift by will.

In an action brought by the plaintiff against the executors of her father's estate, alleging a contract by which her father had, for valuable consideration, MELBOURNE,

promised that he would by his last will leave her a share in his estate equal Sept. 22, 23,

the shares he left to certain others of his children, and claiming damages for breach of such contract, the plaintiff relied on oral conversations. The Statute of Frauds was not pleaded.

Held, that the question for decision was whether the oral conversations amounted to a contract for valuable consideration, or to a mere representation of intention which the plaintiff was content to accept.

The Judge of the Supreme Court having found on the evidence that the plaintiff had failed to establish her case,

Held, that there was no ground for disturbing that finding. Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hodges J.) affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court by Charlotte Elizabeth Wells against Mary Ann Matthews, Frances Chambers, Mary Ann Matthews the younger and Sarah Ann Matthews, personally and as executrices of the will of George Cole Matthews,

18 CLR 441

deceased, the father of the plaintiff, and also against Avis Gamble, Frake Richard Matthews and Elizabeth Cox. By her statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that her father had made a contract with her by which he promised to leave her by his will a certain specified share of his estate, and she claimed damages for the breach of that contract. The material facts are stated in the judgments hereunder.

The action was heard before Hodges J., who gave judgment for the defendants.

From that decision the plaintiff now appealed to the High Court.

A. H. Davis, for the appellant, referred to Leake on Contracts, 6th ed., p. 457; Laver v. Fielder (1); Fraser v. Pupe (2); In re Parkin; Hill v. Schwarz (3); Jones v. How (4); Barkworth V. Young (5); Chaplin v. Hicks (6); Ex parte Wilmot In re Thompson (7).

[ISAACS J. referred to Logan v. Wienholt (8).

RICH J. referred to Fry on Specific Performance, 4th ed., p. 100; Goilmere v. Battison (9).]

Bryant and Latham, for the respondents, were not called on.

GRIFFITH C.J. I think Mr. Davis has said all that can be said for his client, but he has failed to satisfy me that the conclusion of Hodges J., who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the numerous witnesses, is erroneous. The action is a singular The plaintiff claims that her father made a contract with her for valuable consideration that he would leave her a share in his estate equal to the share or shares that he might leave to three of his younger children. The contract is stated in three different ways, to which I will refer afterwards. The father, who was…

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 Wells v Matthews

Details

AGLC: Wells v Matthews [1914] HCA 50
Case: [1914] HCA 50
Decision Date: 24 September 1914

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charlotte Elizabeth Wells (the plaintiff) brought an action against the executors of her deceased father's estate, alleging a contract whereby her father had promised, for valuable consideration, to leave her a share in his estate equal to the shares left to certain of his younger children. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of this alleged contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria before Hodges J., who found that the plaintiff had failed to establish her case and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the oral conversations relied upon by the plaintiff constituted a binding contract for valuable consideration, or merely a representation of the father's intention that the plaintiff was content to accept. This distinction was crucial in determining whether the father's subsequent will, which provided a lesser share to the plaintiff, constituted a breach of contract. The Statute of Frauds was not pleaded by the defendants.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the plaintiff's claim was based on oral evidence, which was conflicting and depended heavily on the credibility of witnesses. The Chief Justice, Griffith CJ, emphasised that Hodges J. had the advantage of observing and hearing the witnesses, and that his finding that no definite contract had been established, but rather a mutual understanding amounting to a representation of intention, was not erroneous. Isaacs J. agreed, highlighting that while the evidence was capable of two constructions, the demeanour of the witnesses, which the trial judge observed, was a significant factor in reaching a conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders