LAW4003 Research Assignment

Harold Griffin was a revered Melbourne businessman with a penchant for traditional values. He was famously homophobic and had been known for contributing vast sums of money to the "Say no to Same-Sex Marriage" campaign. He drafted the following clause within his will:

"My houses in Fitzroy and Northcote are to be held in trust for my son Michael Griffin for the duration of his natural life, provided he marries in a manner consistent with the Griffin family traditions and values. Should circumstances arise that represent a significant departure from these traditions, the property shall then pass to my niece, Elise."

Harold was well aware that Michael was gay but had struggled to accept his son's sexuality for years. He had also revealed the existence of this particular clause in the will to Michael, causing a rift between them. At the start of 2024, Michael had informed his father about his upcoming wedding to his partner, Rafael, scheduled for the 19 th of April, 2024. Harold had refused to say anything.

On the 16 th of February 2024, Harold's sister took him to Taylor Swift's Eras Concert at the MCG in Melbourne. Harold complained the whole way there, but once he arrived at the concert, found himself transformed by the joyful atmosphere. As he listened to Taylor's music over the course of evening, he felt his regressive attitudes melting away. "I need to calm down", he told his sister as he hugged her goodbye later that night. "I'm sorry about how hateful I've been", he went on to say. I'm going to take care of that awfully homophobic clause from my will. Hopefully Michael will forgive me." The next morning, he messaged Michael: "I can't wait to attend your wedding".

Unfortunately, two weeks before Michael's wedding, Harold had a heart attack and passed away. The day after he died, Harold's will was read out, and contained the following, largely unchanged clause:

11. "My houses in Fitzroy and Northcote are to be held in trust for my son Michael Griffin for the duration of his natural life, provided he marries in a manner consistent with the Griffin family traditions and values. Should circumstances arise that, in the opinion of my trustees, represent a significant departure from these traditions, the property shall then pass to my niece, Elise."

The will did however, contain two recently inserted new clauses.

15. "$1,000,000 to the National LGBTQIA+ Association to be used in furtherance of its objectives".

17. "$5,000,000" to the Melbourne Swift Society to be used in furtherance of its objectives"

The National LGBTQIA+ Association had been set up in 2010 to provide support services and counselling for LGBTQIA+ individuals in Victoria. It transpired that the Association had become defunct in 2023, and its premises had been purchased by a new organisation called "Queers for Legal Change". The website for "Queers for Legal Change" states that it has been formed for the purpose of "Creating a more just society for LGBTQIA+ persons, through legal advocacy and political lobbying". The site also prominently displays images from the organisation's latest campaign. One poster states: "Stop Anti-Trans Hate! Vote for the Greens."

The website for the Melbourne Swift Society reads: "Nice to meet you, where you been? We can show you incredible things. Through regular events like karaoke, trivia, and bingo nights, we bring hundreds of Melbournians together over a shared love for Taylor Swift".

The trustee who is charged with administering Harold's estate is conflicted. He is very fond of Michael and would really like to find a way for him to receive Harold's house despite the strictures of Clause 11. He is also concerned about how he might satisfy Harold's wishes as per Clause 15, and is unsure about the validity of the charity listed in Clause 17. He approaches a law firm, asking for advice.

You are an intern at the law firm. Provide a well-researched note for Michael, addressing Clause 11, 15 and 17 separately. Even as you list potential arguments for each Clause, provide a conclusion for each issue. While you are primarily expected to consult Australian legal materials, you may refer to other common law jurisdictions for supplementing your arguments where required.

I only need assistance with CL17.

- What is the issue?

- Can you find similar cases ?

- Is it valid

can you please go into detail, using statue and case law where possible using IRAC