Summary Notes on Law of Trust & Equity : Specific Rules in Interpreting the Wills
assalam & salam sejahtera
Law of Trust & Equity : Specific Rules in Interpreting the Wills
.................................Here it goes...................................
è
SPECIFIC RULES IN INTERPRETING THE WILLS
ü
THERE ARE 4 GENERAL
RULE USED BY COURT TO INTERPRET
1. Literal rule :
Give a literal approach on the words.
2.
Golden rule :
3. Euisdem Generis rule : The words is interpret acc. to its class.
Ø
Eg
: ‘Money’ – can meant as house, prop., chattle, etc.
è
FAILURE OF A GIFT
UNDER THE WILL
1)
Disclaimer by the
beneficiary.
ü TOWNSON
v TICKELL
·
PRINCIPLE
: A man is allowed not to accept any gift via the will if he choose to do so.
He is however,
i.
Cannot afterwards
disclaim it when he has at 1st accepted such gift.
ii.
Cannot accept only
part of it, and disclaim part of it.
2)
Lapse of time.
Ø When
the gift is lapsed, such prop. will reversed back to the residue (govt).
Ø EXCEPTIONS
:
i.
Gifts that are given
to fulfil a moral obligation.
ü RE
LEACH’S WT (1904)
·
FOC
: A mom did a provision for her son’s debt to be paid via the will. Such
payment of debt will be directly made to the creditor. The creditor died before
the testator.
·
ISSUE
: Did the gift lapsed as the cond. of the will is not met?
·
PRINCIPLE
: Such gift will not lapsed. The personal rep. of the creditor is entitle to
gain the gift as to fulfil the moral obligation of the will.
ii.
Gifts to issue under
S.25 of WA.
ü RE
MEREDITH (1924)
·
PRINCIPLE
: [*upholds S.25 WA] In a situation a gift is given to a beneficiary via will,
but the beneficiary died before the testator, such gift will be safe from
lapsed by the issue. (who is issue : children / the descendants of the
children). *However, this principle of S.25 of WA may be differed if the testator
expresses a clear intention to contradict such principle.
ü ELLIOT
v JOICEY (1935)
·
PRINCIPLE
: The issue must be an issue that is living during the lifetime of the
testator. The newly born issue after the death of the testator will not save
the gift from lapsed.
ü RE
BASIOLI (1953)
·
PRINCIPLE
: The issue only has one function that is to save such gift from lapsed and not
be a party where such gift will be permanently given. Later, such gift will be
given to the party who is entitle to it.
ü RE
HENSLER (1881)
·
PRINCIPLE
: The gifts in this context will then be divided acc. to the intestacy rule
where S.25 give rise to a ‘circle’ of who should receive.
3)
Gift for the purpose of charity.
Ø The
gen. rule is that, if the gift is given for charitable purposes (intention),
but they don’t really use such gift for the purpose given, such gift may be
lapsed / used for the closest purposes.
Ø Eg : Amera had given RM2 million
to Hospital Serdang for the research of Aids’ treatment via her will, but later
the hospital decided to close the department which responsible in conducting
such purposes. Here, such amount of money may be directs to other closest
purposes or lapsed.
Ø The
gift shall not automatically lapse if the above cond. is existing as the aim
under this exception is to avoid the prop. goes intestate.
4)
Substitutionary gift.
ü RE
GREENWOOD (1912)
·
FOC
: A testator wrote down that, “the gift is to A, but if he dies in my lifetime,
the gift is to his legal personal representatives”.
·
PRINCIPLE
: So here, such gift will not lapsed
but will go to the legal personal representatives.
5)
Gift to joint owners.
Ø Here,
the gift will not lapsed unless both predecease (died before) the testator.
è
COMMORIENTES
(Those who died at the same time)
Ø The
presumption is applicable for the situation where the death is uncertain.
Ø This
presumption is important in helping to determine the sequence of who died
first, i.e. to help the ct know whether the gift had lapsed or not or etc.
Ø The
presumptions here are :
i.
Its presumed that
the older died first than the younger – applicable for all situation.
ii.
Between husband
& wife, the presumption is that both is survived each other – only for
spouse who death is uncertain between them.
Ø PRESUMPTION
OF SURVIVORSHIP ACT 1950
If 2 persons died
rendering it to be uncertain on who died first, the presumption is that the
older died first.
ü HICKMAN
v PEACEY (1945)
·
FOC
: During the 2nd world was,
German had bombarded a building causing 5 people to die in the basement. Its
uncertain of who died first.
·
PRINCIPLE
: As he death sequence is uncertain, the elder presumed to die first.
è
THE WILL TAKES EFFECT
AT THE DEATH OF TESTATOR
Ø S.18
of WA : The
will shall take effect immediately before the death of the testator unless
there is contrary intention.
Ø ISSUES
ON THE EFFECT :
a)
Specific gift.
ü TRINDER
v TRINDER (1866)
·
FOC
: The testator wrote a provision
saying that ‘all my shares in Marks & Spencer Ltd shall be given to the person’.
·
ISSUE
: Whether
the ‘all my shares’ cover shares who expanded from the initial value as per at
the time the testator died?
·
PRINCIPLE
: Yes, it cover all the shares.
b)
The will refers to date of the will.
ü RE
WILLIS (1911)
·
FOC
: In the will, its written that, ‘all
that my freehold house & premises situated at Oakleigh Park, …. in which I
now reside.’ In this case, the house is divided into 2 during the lifetime of
the testator, and he only reside in a part of it.
·
ISSUE
: Whether the person entitle for the
original version of house or only part of the house which resided by the
testator right before he dead?
·
PRINCIPLE
: The statement ‘in which I now
reside’ refers to the time of his death. So the beneficiary only possessed a
part of the house. The same applied when the prop. had been renovated or change
into a better prop.
c)
Doctrine of ademption.
Ø It
is a common law doctrine used in the law of wills to determine what happens
when prop. bequeathed (given) under a will is no longer in the testator’s
estate at the time the testator died.
Ø The
rule is that, the gift must exist at the time of the execution of the will.
ü RE
SLATER (1907)
·
FOC
: The testator gifted shares in
Lambeth Waterworks Co., which was subsequently taken over & merged into
Metropolitan Water Board. Stocks in Metropolitan W. B. was issued to the
shareholders of the Lambeth W. C.. The COA held that the new stock was in
different concern & that the legacy was adeemed.
d)
Interests acquired after the execution of the will.
ü RE
RUSSELL (1882)
·
FOC
: Initially, the testator made a will
by a gift of his share of the partnership which amounted to 1/3. Later, he
acquired all the shares, making him as the sole proprietor of the shares.
·
PRINCIPLE
: The gift in his will is now
included the whole interests of shares acquired by him.
è
EXCEPTION TO THIE RULE
: ‘THE WILL TAKES EFFECT AT THE DEATH OF TESTATOR’.
1.
When its clearly
expressed so.
ü RE
WHORWOOD (1887)
·
FOC
: In this case, via a will an asset
had been given to lord Chernorne. But different at the time the testator made
such will and at the time the testator
died, the Lord Chernorne (such title) had changed from one person to another
person.
·
PRINCIPLE
: Its
impossible based on the facts that such asset is directed to the small Lord. In
this case, such asset was regarded for his friend who at 1st owned
the title of Lord Chernorne (the earlier one).
è
GENERAL RULE ON PUBLIC
POLICY.
Ø
The
gen. rule is that, a beneficiary is not allowed to gain any gift from the will
if he had committed wrong to gain such gifts.
Ø
Eg
: He murdered testator to gain the gift speedily.
ü RE
PEACOCK (1957)
·
PRINCIPLE
: A person who knew that his name is within the will and had killed a testator
to gain the gift shall be restrained from receiving such gifts.
ü CLEAVER
v MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASOC.(1892)
·
FOC
: A beneficiary knew that there was a
reserved fund for his parents. He had then killed his parents to gain such
insurance.
·
PRINCIPLE
: Such acquirement is not valid.
Comments
Post a Comment