The Court of Appeal held that a will clause using both precatory ('I EXPRESS the wish') and mandatory ('I DIRECT') language, when read as a whole and in context, created a personal right of residence in the nature of a licence rather than merely expressing a wish. The right was joint in nature, not joint and several, meaning it terminated when one of the two beneficiaries expressed a desire to no longer reside. The Court also confirmed that a trial judge is not bound by parties' agreed concession as to the construction of a will and may raise an alternative construction of their own motion, provided the parties are given an opportunity to be heard — but the Court left open whether conventional estoppel could in principle prevent a court from departing from a shared assumption among beneficiaries as to the meaning of a will provision.
The full text is available to signed-in members.