By Darryl Browne -
Key decisions
- KZY v WXW [2026] QCA 101 (will construction)
- Case 12-24-109608 (concerning Team Super Pty Ltd), Case 12-24-155676 (concerning Caresuper Pty Ltd), Case 12-00-1095028 (concerning AustralianSuper Pty Ltd), Case 12-24-139785 (concerning AustralianSuper Pty Ltd) and Radanov v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 929 (death benefit)
- NCAT Procedural Direction for Guardianship Division (guardianship)
Construction of a badly drafted will clause
KZY v WXW [2026] QCA 101 (Brown JA, Crow and Hindman JJ agreeing) involved the construction of a will. Clauses 3 and 4 of the will gave specific gifts of the whole of the deceased’s estate to three beneficiaries. Clause 6, which was described by the Court of Appeal as a ‘badly drafted clause’ (at [45]), stated:
I EXPRESS the wish and I DIRECT that my sons [first respondent] and [appellant] be permitted to reside in the [property] until they express a desire to move from the house property. During the period of the tenancy it is intended my sons be responsible for the local authority rates, maintenance and insurance on the said property.
The sons who benefited from the clause agreed it created a right to reside. The Court, at first instance, decided it did not do so. One of the sons appealed. The Court of Appeal stated that the question as to whether there was a right to reside arising from the will was plainly a question of law (at [22]). A question of law cannot be decided by agreement of the parties and must be decided by the court.
