[1979] 1 WLR 247 (CA).

Facts:

A father left property on trust for the education of his daughter up to the university level and to support his elderly mother. After his mother had died and the daughter graduated, there was some money left over. The question arose whether should the surplus money go to the daughter, or should it goes back to the father’s estate?

Held: (CA)

The expression of the purpose was only a motive and thus the daughter gets the money.

It’s simply a matter of construction the purpose specified was merely the motive in which the testator made the gift.   

BUCKLEY LJ stated: “ If a testator has given the whole of a fund… to a beneficiary.. he is regarded, in the absence of any contra indication (contrary intention), as having manifested an intention to benefit that person to the full extent of the subject matter, notwithstanding that he may have expressly stated that the gift is made for a particular purpose “

Note:

This case can be distinguished from Re Abbott (where the surplus was held on resulting trust for testator’s estate) because in Re Abbott there were no surviving beneficiaries, so such an outcome was not particular unjust. In Re Osaba , the testator's word in the will could be construed in such a way that the daughter was entitled to the continued benefit of the trust.