Wills (Amendment) Act 1991 (ACT)

This case involved the consideration of the Wills (Amendment) Act 1991 (ACT) by the court. The Act amended the Wills Act 1968 and addressed various aspects of testamentary dispositions. The court was required to interpret and apply the provisions of the amended Act to determine the validity and effect of various wills and testamentary provisions.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the validity of wills made by minors, the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in interpreting wills, the effect of marriage on the validity of wills, and the distribution of property under wills. The court had to determine whether wills made by minors, who were not married, were valid under the amended Act, whether extrinsic evidence could be considered in interpreting ambiguous or uncertain wills, and how marriage affected the validity of wills and the distribution of property.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a careful analysis of the provisions of the amended Act. The court held that wills made by minors, who were not married, were generally invalid under the amended Act, but could be made valid under certain circumstances if the minor understood the nature and effect of the will and the Supreme Court granted an order to that effect. The court also held that extrinsic evidence could be considered in interpreting ambiguous or uncertain wills, but only to the extent that the language used in the will was meaningless, ambiguous, or uncertain on the face of the will or in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The court further held that marriage generally revoked wills, except for certain provisions made in contemplation of the marriage, and that the termination of a marriage revoked certain beneficial gifts and appointments in favor of the former spouse, unless the testator did not intend to revoke the gift or the will was republished after the termination of the marriage without evidence of such intention.

The final orders of the court would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, but would be based on the interpretation and application of the amended Act as outlined above.