ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Testator's Family Maintenance-WillTestator-Application by widow-Power to
make order " towards the maintenance and support of such widow Form of provision-Lump sum-Payments during life as distinct from widowhood- Whether court has jurisdiction to make order for-Or should as matter of practice MELBOURNE, do -Meaning of "maintenance and support "--Principles applicable to May 24, 27; application-Discretion of trial judge-Principles governing appeal from- Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas.), ss. 3, 7.
' (1) If any person disposes of his property, either wholly or partly, by will in such a manner that upon his death the widow or any child of the testator is left without sufficient means for her or his maintenance and support, the Court or a judge, in its or his discretion, may, upon the application by or on behalf of such widow or child, order such provision as to the Court or judge seems proper, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to be made out of the estate of such deceased person in or towards the maintenance and support of such widow or child. (2) The Court or judge may make such other order in the matter, including any order as to costs, as the Court or judge may think fit." Section 7 provides: "In granting or refusing any application, and in fixing the amount of the provision to be made under the Act for the widow or any child, the Court or judge shall have regard, inter alia, to-(II) Whether the widow or any such child is entitled to independent means, whether
secured by any covenant, settlement, transfer, or other provision made by the deceased person during his life or derived from any other source what-
Held that there is jurisdiction under the Act to make an order for payment of a lump sum in favour of a widow.
In re Bennett (1954) Tas.S.R. 67, approved; Re Greene's Estate (1930) 25 Tas L.R. 15, disapproved.
Held, further, by Williams and Fullagar JJ., Kitto J. expressing no opinion, that there is jurisdiction under the Act to make an order in favour of the widow of a testator for life as distinct from during widowhood.
D'Antoine v. Field (1923) 19 Tas.L.R. 21, disapproved. Held, further, that the reasoning in Bosch v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd.) (1938) A.C. 463 decided on the corresponding New South Wales statute is applicable to the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas.).
In re Norris (1953) Tas.L.R. 32, approved; Re Greene's Estate (1930) 25 Tas. L.R. 15, disapproved.
Held, further, that in the circumstances the exercise of discretion by the trial judge had miscarried.
Observations on whether as a matter of practice lump sums should be awarded and in what circumstances and whether orders should be made during
Decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (Morris…
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 Worladge v Doddridge
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Worladge v Doddridge [1957] HCA 45
Case
[1957] HCA 45
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania regarding an application made by a widow, Minnie May Doddridge, for further provision out of her deceased husband's estate under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas.). The testator, Donald Gordon Doddridge, had left his widow an annuity of £104 until her death or remarriage, with the residue of his substantial estate passing to his nephews. The widow sought additional provision, and the primary judge ordered a lump sum payment of £1,800 and an annuity of £1,000 per year. The residuary beneficiaries appealed this decision to the High Court.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Testator's Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas.) conferred jurisdiction to make an order for a lump sum payment to a widow, and whether it permitted provision for a widow for her life as distinct from during her widowhood. Additionally, the court was required to determine if the discretion exercised by the trial judge in making the award was erroneous, and whether the principles established in *Bosch v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd.)* were applicable to the Tasmanian Act.
The High Court, in a joint judgment by Williams and Fullagar JJ. (with Kitto J. expressing no opinion on the second point), held that there was indeed jurisdiction under the Act to order the payment of a lump sum to a widow, and also to make provision for her life rather than solely during her widowhood. The Court reasoned that the term "provision" in the Act was of wide import and could encompass both lump sums and life estates, and that the absence of express wording in the Tasmanian Act, unlike some other jurisdictions, did not preclude such orders. The Court found the reasoning in *Bosch v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd.)* to be applicable, which guided the interpretation of "maintenance and support" to include considerations beyond mere subsistence, reflecting the testator's moral duty as a "wise and just" person. However, the Court concluded that the discretion of the trial judge had miscarried, finding the award to be excessively generous and not sufficiently accounting for the widow's existing assets and earning capacity, nor adhering to the principle of not rewriting the testator's will beyond what was necessary for maintenance and support.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. In its place, the Court varied the testator's will by substituting the original annuity with an annuity of £520 during the applicant's widowhood and ordered the payment of £1,000 from the corpus of the estate to the widow. The costs of all parties for the appeal were to be paid out of the testator's estate.