placeholder-image coin

Miller’s Trustees v Miller, (1890) 18 R 301

Miller’s Trustees v Miller, (1890) 18 R 301


Citation: Miller’s Trustees v Miller, (1890) 18 R 301

Link to case on WorldLII.

Rule of thumb: If you are granted something in a will which has financial obligations/burdens are you bound to take it? No. Anything given to a person in a will which has financial obligations can be refused.

Judgment:

This case affirmed the principle of ‘repugnancy’ – this means that someone has been given a gift which is deemed to be contradictory, then the Court can adjust the gift to make it viable. This is often applied where someone is granted property with onerous management responsibilities attached to it, and it is held that these should be relaxed. Another example is where someone is granted a right of property but there are other debts to be paid, so the beneficiary cannot be allowed to have the property and it has to be liquidated with the proceeds shared out, ‘where there are trust purposes to be served which cannot be secured without the retention of the vested estate or interest of the beneficiary in the hands of the trustees, the rule cannot be applied, and the right of the beneficiary must be subordinate to the rule of the testator. This is a necessary qualification, because there may be contingent liabilities, the amount of which cannot be precisely ascertained, and for which it may be necessary to retain such a sum as the trustees judge should be sufficient’, at 301

centered image

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.