Two NSW Will Dispute Lawyers argue over the meaning of the words “issue children”
The Plaintiffs Application:
The plaintiff through her legal team contended the words “issue children” meant children of the deceased and not to include grandchildren. The case was therefore about whether there was intention to narrow the usual meaning of “issue” and whether sufficiently clear words were used or error when other words must have been intended.
A difference of opinion emerged between the plaintiff and the first defendant as to whether the gift in remainder is shared equally by the plaintiff and the first defendant, or whether it is shared by the plaintiff as to one third, the first defendant as to one third, and the children of Imelda Shiels equally as to the remaining third.
My Summary of the Case:
The testator’s will (together with a codicil dated 11 July 1945) deals first with the payment of debts and certain pecuniary legacies out of the personal estate.
The point of construction primarily concerns the meaning of the words “issue children”. Those words appear in the provision that deals with the testator’s real estate.
The question of construction here is primarily focused upon the words “issue children” used in relation to Thomas Patrick Morrissey. meaning of the expression “issue children” used in relation to Thomas Patrick Morrissey, encompasses only children of Thomas Patrick Morrissey.
This is part of what the Judge said;
“In my opinion, the words “issue children” should be construed in accordance with their ordinary meanings, such that they encompass only children of Thomas Patrick Morrissey. On that basis, and in the event that have happened, the gift in remainder of the testator’s real estate is shared equally by the plaintiff and the first defendant as tenants in common. The Court will make a declaration to that effect."
The general principles applicable to the construction of wills may be summarised, for the purposes of this case, as follows. The Court must construe the language of the instrument, read as a whole, in order to determine the testator’s intention. The words of a will are given their usual or ordinary grammatical meaning, unless the context indicates to the contrary, or the ordinary meaning lacks sense. In some instances, it may be clear that words have been employed in error and that other words must have been intended.
My Summary of the Court Order:
The Court made the following orders omitting any referenced to grand children:
That the true construction of the last will of the late John Morrissey dated 28 October 1938, and in the events that have happened, the gift in remainder of the testator’s real estate is shared equally by the plaintiff and the first defendant as tenants in common;
Orders that the costs of the plaintiff and the first defendant be paid out of the trust estate on the indemnity basis; and
Orders that the costs of the second and third defendants be paid out of the trust estate on the ordinary basis.
Exceptional skills of compassion and understanding.
Kindness and listening skills.
Simple but good advice.
Professional and people are lucky to call you “mate”.
I will always remember and hold you in great esteem.
A wonderful negotiator.
A good bloke with a good heart.
Thank you for always keeping to your word.
Help was wonderful and restored my faith in people.
I consider myself blessed I was able to receive your help.
I have been repeatedly impressed with your professionalism.
Consideration and efficiency.
Grateful for your honesty.
Thank you for your free professional advice.
Explained the facts concisely without any complications.
Would highly recommend you to anyone.
Sure to recommend you to my friends and colleagues.
Glad I had you on my side at mediation.
Will thoroughly recommend you to anyone.
Very sensible but protective at mediation.
So impressed with your return phone calls to me.
So impressed by you trying to protect me.
Advice invaluable and straightforward.
Professional but at the same time caring.
Always took the time to have an in-depth discussion.
Would not hesitate to recommend you to anyone.
Have no hesitation in highly recommending you to anyone.
Explained legal costs very clearly.
Genuine highly skilled Lawyer.
No complicated legal jargon.
You were right from the beginning Eric.
Available day, night and weekends.
No words to express my thanks and deep gratitude.
Compassion and long and hard devoted hours.
Immediate response to my phone calls and emails.
Personal and professional manner.
Explained things in a language that I could understand.
Free help and would recommend you to anybody.
Discreet manner handling a difficult situation.
Free initial advice delivered the same day as my enquiry.
Plain English answers and no complicated legal jargon.
Setting out easy to read information on legal fee costs.
I have full faith in your integrity.
Answered my questions quickly and thoroughly.
Very grateful I had someone like you representing me.
Explained things so clearly.
Patience and understanding.
The first thing that struck me was how approachable you are.
Advice in plain English and knowledgeable.
Professional, genuine and honest.
Mum still talks about how wonderful you were.
Availability was outstanding.
Perseverance and especially your patience.
I appreciate your integrity.
Never failed to be transparent and brutally honest.
Kept to your word on legal costs.
Answered to phone every time I called.
Explained it to me so clearly.
We are always available for a free no obligation discussion
1800 960 156
Level 13, 111 Elizabeth Street ,
Sydney NSW 2000.
i (02) 4067 4118
Level 11, 456 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000.
Level 10, 95 North Quay,
Brisbane Brisbane QLD 4000.
Level 1, 45 Hunter Street,
Newcastle NSW 2300.
i (02) 4067 4118