Assessment Paper On Will Law Research Paper Coursework (Research Paper Sample)

Assessment 2
Name
Professor
Date
Introduction
This paper provides brief answers in response to a fact pattern containing the will and last testament of Alvin. The paper answers four main questions asked.
How the Residuary Estate will be distributed
Residuary estate is dealt with under clause 5 of Alvin Tan’s Will. By virtue of that clause, the Alvin bequeaths the rest of his estate to his brother, Elvis Tan. According to the facts of the scenario, Elvis died in 2007 leaving behind Alvin, the testator who died in 2007. Elvis, the beneficiary of the residual estate, died leaving behind a wife and two children, namely Fin and Hal aged seven and five, respectively. The issue, therefore, is how the residuary estate will be distributed in light of the fact that the testator was predeceased.
It is important to consider whether Elvis’ wife and children have a right of benefiting from the residuary estate. Section 26 of the Wills Act (1838) provides that where an issue dies during the testator’s lifetime, the bequest will not lapse provided that issue is survived by children. The intention of this section is that the gift reaches the testator’s grandchildren (Crown, 1992). The question is whether this provision is applicable to a beneficiary who is not a child of the testator as is the case of Elvis. This question was dealt with by the High Court of Singapore in the case of Re Will of Loke Soh Lui, Deceased (1997). Chan Seng Onn, JC authoritatively emphasized that section 26 of the Wills Act is not applicable in instances where the gift is named to a person who is not a child of the testator. Therefore, section 26 of the Wills Act is not applicable in Elvis’ case. The gift/residuary estate bequeathed to Elvis will, therefore, lapse and fall into residue. This is so unless the testator expressly stated to whom the gift will vest in case the beneficiary predeceases him. However, this is not the case with Alvin’s will. Indeed, according to Halsbury Laws of England (1987), intentions unexpressed are irrelevant and courts, as a general rule will not give effect to such.