Irwin v Tyson [1963] HCA 62

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ. Irwin v Tyson [1963] HCA 62

ORDER Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court varied as follows: After the words in the said order It is ordered that the questions asked in the said summons be answered as follows, the following answers to the questions in the said order set out are substituted. Question 1: No. Questions 2 and 3 do not arise. Question 4: The defendant Harry Bucklow became on 17th July 1960 absolutely entitled to the whole beneficial interest in the testator's estate subject to any right or interest created by him and then subsisting in favour of the defendant Phairs Pty. Ltd. or any other company or person. Subject to the foregoing variations the order of the Supreme Court is confirmed. Costs of the appeal to be paid out of the estate.

Cur. adv. vult.

On 12th October 1962, before the Full Court resumed hearing the appeal, Menzies J. in chambers ordered that the proceedings be amended by substituting William Michael Bucklow and Peter Cameron Bucklow as respondents to the appeal in lieu of Kathleen Margaret Sholl and directed that a copy of the order and the notice of appeal be served on the parties so joined. His Honour also ordered that in the event of the Court making an order for costs in favour of the interest formerly represented by Mrs. Sholl she should have her costs up to the date of order and the parties joined, their costs thereafter, and that the costs of the parties appearing on the summons in chambers be taxed and paid by the plaintiff respondent out of the estate of William Bucklow, deceased. Kathleen Margaret Sholl subsequently filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the infant respondents as their guardian ad litem. At the resumption of the hearing before the Full Court K. A. Aickin Q.C. and B. F. McNab were granted leave to appear on behalf of William Michael Bucklow and Peter Cameron Bucklow. The following written judgments were delivered:—