Sydall v Castings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,Lord Justice Diplock,Lord Justice Russell |
| Judgment Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1010-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 10 October 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1010-3
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Diplock and
Lord Justice Russell
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From His Honour Judge Beresford Walsall County Court
Mr R. EVANS (instructed by Messrs Church, Bruce, Hawkes & Brasington, Gravesend, Kent) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. N. BUDGEN (instructed by Messrs Kenneth Cooke & Co., Walsall) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
The question in this case is whether an Illegitimate child is eligible for benefit in a group life assurance scheme. Is she disqualified by being born illegitimated?
Castings Ltd. carry on business at Walsall in Stafford-shire. They have a group life assurance scheme for their employees. They bear the whole cost of it. If a man dies whilst in their service, the Insurance Company pay to Castings Ltd. a lump sum. Castings Ltd. then hold the sum as trustees for the man's dependants and relations, and distribute it amongst them in such a way as they think fit.
Mr. Sydall was employed by Castings Ltd. as maintenance fitter. He was born in 1916 and married very young in 1936. He had four children by his wife. In 1962 he and his wife separated. He set up house with another woman, a Mrs. Judith Draper, at Walsall. They lived together as man and wife. Mrs. Draper took the name of Sydall. They were known as Mr. and Mrs. Sydall. They had a daughter Yvette. She was born on the 30th December, 1962, and is now getting on for four years old. His lawful wife went off to live at Gravesend in Kent. There are now two grandchildren.
On the 6th January, 1965, Mr Sydall had a coronary thrombosis and died at alsall in the house where he was living with the new Mrs. Sydall and their daughter Yvette. Under the group life assurance scheme the insurance Company paid £300 to Castings Ltd. Castings Ltd. hold this sum as trusts and would like some part of it, at any rate, to be used for the benefit of Yvette. The lawful wife, however, says: No. She has taken out administration to her husband's estate and claims that the whole of the £300 should be for the benefit of herself and her children and grandchildren. Yvette, she says, is illegitimate and does not count as one of his "dependants" or "relations". Those are the crucial words. Under the scheme the fund has to go to his "dependants" or "relations ". You might think that Yvette would qualify as a"dependant". But unfortunately she does not do so. The scheme restricts the meaning of "dependants". It means only those persons whom the dead man names in his will or in a letter to the Company. But Mr Sydall never made a will or wrote a letter. That was no doubt an oversight which he and many like him would also overlook.
So Yvette can only qualify if she can count as a "relation". The relevant provision of the scheme is Rule 3(b) which says that, on the death of a member while in service, the life assurance benefit will be held by the Company upon trust to pay the said benefit "to all or such one or more of the relations of the member living at the date of his death in such shares as the Company shall in its absolute discretion determine".
In order to find who are comprised in the group of relations, we have to look at the definition, which says:
Relations' in relation to a member means:
(i) any spouse ancestor or descendant (however remote) of the member or the spouse of such ancestor or descendant; and
(ii) any brother or sister uncle or aunt (whether of the whole or half blood) of the member or any spouse or descendant of any such person; and for the purpose of this definition:
(a) a relationship acquired by process of legal adoption shall be as valid as a blood relationship; and
(b) a step-child shall be deemed to be a descendant".
In order to qualify for benefit, therefore, Yvette must be a "relation" of her father, and in order to be a "relation", she has to be a "descendant" of him. The key words are "relation" and "descendant". They are not technical words. Nor are they terms of art. They should be given their ordinary meaning.
Start with the word "relations". Yvette is clearly a relation of her father. A man's "relations" are all those who are connected by blood or marriage to him. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary says so. It says that "related", when used of persons, means "connected by blood or marriage ( to another or with each other)" and that "relation" means "a person related to one by blood or marriage". I think that an illegitimate person can properly be said to have relations. He has a father and mother, brothers and sisters, all of whom are connected with him by blood, though not by marriage. All are his relations.
Next, take the word "descendant". Yvette is clearly a " descendant" of her father. A man's "descendants" are all those who are descended from him by blood. When we say that "we are all descended from Adam and Eve", we mean that we are descended by blood, not by marriage. When someone claims to be a "descendant" of one of the Barons of Magna Carta, his claim is good if he is descended by blood. It is not to be rejected because his escutcheon has been de-bruised with a baton sinister. In ordinary speech a person is a "descendant" if he can trace his descent by blood, even though at some point there is illegitimacy.
I would hold, therefore, that according to the ordinary meaning of the words, Yvette is a "relation" of her father and a "descendant" from him. She should, therefore, be included amongst those qualified for benefit.
But we are pressed by counsel to give the words an extra-ordinary meaning. "Relations", it is said, includes only legitimate relations. And "descendant" means only a legitimate descendant. For this purpose reliance is placed on a passage in Jarman on Wills, Eighth Edition, p. 1783. If this contention be correct, it means that because Yvette is illegitimate, she is to be excluded from any benefit. Sheis on this view no "relation" of her father: nor is she "descended" from him. In the eye of the law she is the daughter of nobody. She is related to nobody. She is an outcast and is to be shut out from any part of her father's insurance benefit.
I have no doubt that such an argument would have been acceptable in the 19tb century. The Judges in those days used to think that, if they allowed illegitimate children to take a benefit, they were encouraging immorality. They laid down narrow pedantic rules such as that stated by Lord Chelmsford in Hill v. Crook, (1873) Law Reports, 6 House of Lords, at p. 278: "No gift, however expressed, to unborn illegitimate persons is allowed by law". In laying down such rules, they acted in accordance with the then contemporary morality. Even the Victorian fathers thought they were doing right when they turned their erring daughters out of the house. They visited the sins of the fathers upon the children - with a vengeance. I think we should throw over those harsh rules of the past. They are not rules of law. They are only guides to the construction of documents. They are quite out of date. We no longer penalize the illegitimate child. We should replace those old rules by a more rational approach. If they are wide enough to include an illegitimate child, we should so interpret them. Just as Mr. Justice Mackinnon did in Morris V. Britannic Assurance Co., 1931, 2 King's Bench, p. 127, when he held that, in a statute concerning industrial assurance benefits, the word "child" included an illegitimate child. So here the words "relations" and "descendant" in a group assurance scheme are wide enough to include illegitimate children and we should so interpret them.
This view is borne out by the structure of the scheme itself. We start with the word "relations". Its natural and ordinary meaning is to denote "persons connectedby blood or marriage". Prima facie that is the meaning it bears. Then we look to the definition of "relations". The function of a definition like this is not to displace the natural and ordinary meaning of the original words. It is only to supplement it, that is to say, to set out its limits or to restrict or extend them. There are many authorities to this effect, such as The Queen v. Justices of Cheshire, (1838) 7 Adolphus & Ellis at p. 491 by Lord Penman, Chief Justice: The Queen v. Pearce (1880) 5 Queen's Bench Division at p. 389 by Mr. Justice Lush; and the School Board for London v. Jackson (1881) 7 Queen's Bench Division at p. 504.
So using the definition, we see clearly what relations are included or excluded:
(i) A "spouse" is a husband or wife connected with the member by marriage. Clearly included.
(ii) An "ancestor" or "descendant" is one who is connected with the member by blood. An "ancestor" is one from whom a man is descended by a blood tie, such as father or mother, grandfather or grandmother. A "descendant" is one who descends from another by a blood tie, such as son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter. Clearly included.
(iii) "Brother" and "sister" are persons who are born of the same parents as the member. They are clearly included, even though the parents are not married. If Yvette's parents had more children, they would be her brothers and sisters, even though illegitimate. Half-brothers and half-sisters are also included, because the definition says "whether of the whole or half-blood". Step-brothers and step - sisters are excluded, for there is no blood tie.
(iv) "Uncle" or "aunts" are persons who bear that relationship to the member by blood or marriage. Clearly included.
(v) "Cousins" are not included, even though they are relations in ordinary speech.
(vi) Adopted children and step-children are expressly included. This was necessary because they would not ordinarily be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RHB Trust Company Ltd v Butlin
...of Home Affairs v. Fisher, [1980] A.C. 319; [1979] 3 All E.R. 21, dicta of Lord Wilberforce applied. (3) Sydall v. Castings Ltd., [1967] 1 Q.B. 302; [1966] 3 All E.R. 770, dicta of Diplock and Russell, L.JJ. applied. (4) Watson-Morgan v. Grant, 1990–91 CILR 81, considered. Trusts-beneficiar......
-
Re B
...[1980] A.C. 319; [1979] 3 All E.R. 21. (4) RHB Trust Co. Ltd. v. Butlin, 1992–93 CILR 219, followed. (5) Sydall v. Castings Ltd., [1967] 1 Q.B. 302; [1966] 3 All E.R. 770, dicta of Russell, L.J. applied. (6) Watson-Morgan v. Grant, 1990–91 CILR 81, observations of Zacca, P. applied. (7) Woo......
-
McCann v Halpin
...the category of ?terms of art?, which were described in the enlightening observations of Diplock L.J. in Sydall v. Castings Limited [1966] 3 All ER 770 (at p. 774) as constituent words and phrases which ?are more precise in their meaning than they are in the language of Shakespeare or of an......
-
Mosten Investments LP v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial),,
...on this point, L’Heureux-Dubé J. framed her reasons by first quoting the following passage from Lord Diplock in Sydall v Castings Ltd., [1967] 1 QB 302 (CA) at 313–314 (at para Documents which are intended to give rise to legally enforceable rights and duties contemplate enforcement by due ......
-
General Principles of Interpretation
...F 355, 8 ER 450 (HL); Baldwin & Francis Ltd v Patents Appeal Tribunal , [1959] AC 663 (HL). 86 See, for example, Sydall v Castings Ltd , [1967] 1 QB 302 (CA); London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co Ltd v Bolands Ltd , [1924] AC 836 (HL). 87 See Scragg v United Kingdom Temperance & General Pr......