CHIA -v- CHIA [2025] WASC 499 (2 December 2025)

(a) an affidavit sworn by Ms Chia on 20 October 2025 (Defendant's Affidavit);[2]

(b) an affidavit sworn by Mr Blatchford on 16 October 2025 (Blatchford Affidavit);[3] and

(c) an affidavit sworn by Mr England on 14 October 2025 (England Affidavit).[4]

Counsel for Ms Chia also relied on submissions filed 20 October 2025 (Defendant's Submissions);

1. Also before the court at the trial was an affidavit sworn by Annabel Pizzata on 10 September 2025 (Pizzata Affidavit).[5] Ms Pizzata was the legal practitioner at SHL responsible for the day to day administration of the Estate.
2. At the trial, aside from Mr McGerty, no witness gave oral evidence or was cross-examined.
3. For the reasons which follow, the Original Grant should be revoked and letters of administration with the Will annexed be granted to Mr England.

1. Some issues arose as to the evidence to be relied on at the trial, leading me to convene a directions hearing on 11 November 2025.
2. Counsel for Ms Chia objected to Mr Chia relying on a 164 page affidavit which he lodged in an irregular form on 7 November 2015 (Second Plaintiff Affidavit), and again on 11 November 2025. It was irregular as it had not been sworn. By orders made on 20 October 2025, I had extended the time within which Mr Chia had to file any affidavit to 3 November 2025. So Mr Chia needed leave to file the Second Plaintiff Affidavit.
3. The objections raised by counsel for Ms Chia were that it was out of time, had not by the time of the hearing actually been sworn and had not been served. Further, if Mr Chia was to be given leave to rely on the Second Plaintiff Affidavit, counsel would seek leave to cross‑examine him, and would also need time to review the affidavit. Mr Chia, in response, said that, if there was to be cross‑examination of witnesses, he would require Mr Blatchford and Mr England to be available for cross-examination. All this meant that if Mr Chia was given leave to file the Second Plaintiff Affidavit, the trial listed for 12 November 2025 would have to be vacated.
4. In the end, both Mr Chia and counsel for Ms Chia were content for the trial proceed on 12 November 2025 on the basis that leave was not given for Mr Chia to file the Second Plaintiff Affidavit, but that he would not be cross-examined.[6]
5. There was also an issue taken with the Plaintiff's Affidavit. Mr Chia annexed to his affidavit a handwritten note prepared by Mr McGerty who was present with Mr Chia in a Zoom video conference with Ms Pizzata and Ms Chia on 10 June 2025. The handwritten note was Mr McGerty's record of the conversation. This is obviously objectionable hearsay. Mr Chia had sought to address this issue by filing an affidavit of Mr McGerty in which he annexed his note. However, this affidavit was filed outside the time given in the 20 October 2025 order and was by 11 November 2025 still unsworn. This issue was addressed by Mr McGerty being sworn at the commencement of the trial and giving sufficient evidence to allow for the tender of his handwrote note[7] and a transcription of it.[8]
6. Both at the hearing on 11 November 2025 and at the commencement of the trial, counsel for Ms Chia also objected to the Plaintiff's Affidavit more widely on the basis that it contained objectionable material, primarily submissions and conclusions. I took the view that I would give Mr Chia some liberty in that regard as a litigant in person and allowed the Plaintiff's Affidavit to remain in its current state, saying that the concerns could be addressed in submissions.
7. At the commencement of the trial, Mr Chia sought to rely on an affidavit which he filed in the 2024 Action. Counsel for Ms Chia objected. In making trial programming orders on 2 September 2025, I made it clear to the parties that I wanted a new affidavit filed with all matters relevant to the trial, and that they were not to rely on affidavits previously filed.[9] As reliance on this affidavit was outside the orders of 2 September 2025, I declined to allow him to rely on that affidavit. On the same basis, later on in the trial, I also declined to allow counsel for Ms Chia to tender an extract from one of Mr Chia's earlier affidavits.[10]

1. In order to determine the issues arising in the 2025 Action, it is necessary to go into some detail as to the background and procedural history. The facts in this part are drawn from the records of the court, as well as facts in the affidavits relied on at trial which are not in dispute. I find the facts set out in this part proven on the balance of probabilities.
2. On 7 November 2023, Mr Chia applied for a grant of probate of the Will, with leave being reserved to Ms Chia to also apply for a grant of probate of the Will.[11] His application was filed with the assistance of a law firm, Clairs Keeley Lawyers. Mr Chia filed an affidavit in support sworn the same day. He gave his address as: '1/4 Litchfield Street, Victoria Park, Western Australia'. He attached a statement of assets and liabilities to the effect that the Estate comprised only financial assets in Western Australia in the order of $1.6 million, with no liabilities.
3. On 21 November 2023, Ms Chia lodged a caveat in relation to the Will (Caveat). The reasons given were that Ms Chia had not been provided with adequate notice of Mr Chia's intention, that he stated that he was a resident in Western Australia (when that was not the case) and that he had not provided any guarantee. The Caveat ultimately lapsed after 6 months pursuant to Non-contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA) (NCPR) r 33(6).
4. As mentioned, the 2024 Action was commenced on 11 November 2024. Mr Chia applied for an order under Administration Act 1903 (WA) (AA) s 6 and s 7, or alternatively, the court's inherent jurisdiction, for a grant of probate in his sole name. He then applied for an order granting conditional leave to Ms Chia to apply as a substitute executor or, alternatively, for her to be passed over in this role. He then sought an order disqualifying Dawson Davies, Ms Chia's then solicitors, from further participation in the administration of the Estate.
5. The 2024 Action was resolved on the basis of the February 2025 Orders, the full terms of which were:

(a) They have instructed and will continue to instruct Solomon Hollett Lawyers to Administer the Estate of the late SUSAN MARIE CHIA late of 340 Anchorage Road North, Mindarie in the State of Western Australia, deceased;

(b) They will promptly attend to any requests made by Solomon Hollett Lawyers in regard to the administration of the Estate;

(c) They will promptly sign all documents requested by Solomon Hollett Lawyers required for the Administration of the Estate;

(d) They will instruct any bank or other financial institution to remit any funds payable to the Estate to the Trust Account of Solomon Hollett Lawyers;

(e) They will act in accordance with any reasonable advice given by Solomon Hollet Lawyers including instructing any third party professionals that may be required to assist in the administration of the Estate;

(f) Once sufficient funds have become available to the Estate they will direct Solomon Hollett Lawyers to make an interim distribution to each party in the sum of $100,000.00, provided that without the assistance of Solomon Hollet Lawyers the parties may apply directly for the immediate payment to each of them of the sum on $100,000.00 out of the bank account held in the name of the late Susan Marie Chia at Bankwest; and

(g) The costs of Solomon Hollett Lawyers and any disbursements incurred by them in the Administration of the Estate shall be borne equally by the parties.

1. There be a grant of Probate in the non-contentious form of the copy of the Last Will and Testament deposited with the Court on 30 August 2024 of Susan Marie Chia late of 340 Anchorage Drive North, Mindarie in the State of Western Australia who died on the 7th of September 2023 is hereby granted to DANIELE MONIQUE CHIA of 21A Galahad Way Carine in the said State and JEAN-PAUL MARC CHIA of Flat B, 45 Grafton Way, London in the United Kingdom.
2. The aforesaid Grant of Probate shall be provided to Solomon Hollett Lawyers of Level 1, 16 Parliament Place, West Perth.
3. The parties have liberty to apply on 48 hours notice.
4. There be no orders as to costs.
5. The interim distribution pursuant to paragraph (f) of the 2025 Undertakings was completed around 13 February 2025.
6. The Pizzata Affidavit provides a comprehensive report on the involvement of SHL in the administration of the Estate. This includes almost daily email communication with Mr Chia. From these communications, as things progressed it is apparent that there were four main areas of contention between SHL and Mr Chia.
7. The first area of contention was that Mr Chia wanted there to be a separate bank account for the Estate Mr Chia accepted that the 2025 Undertaking provided that funds would be payable into the trust account of SHL. However, he wanted there to be an Estate account in addition to this. He expressed the concern that if money was paid into the trust account of SHL this would cause taxation implication because the funds would be intermingled. SHL took the view that paragraph (d) of the 2025 Undertaking made it clear that all funds received would be paid into its trust account. SHL also took taxation advice to the effect that intermingling of funds in a lawyer's trust account is not an issue from a taxation perspective because of the trust accounting records that are required to be kept for each individual client. In a letter to Mr Chia and Ms Chia dated 25 February 2025, SHL advised Mr Chia to take independent advice, at his expense, if his position was that this approach would have adverse tax consequences on him as a resident of the United Kingdom.
8. The second area of contention was that Mr Chia wanted to himself prepare and submit the taxation returns for the Deceased and for the Estate. In early correspondence he set out his experience in accounting and taxation. SHL recommended using the services of an independent accountant based in Australia. It wanted to instruct a tax accountant to deal with any taxation matters for the Estate before proceeding to distribute any of the Estate to the beneficiaries. In a letter to SHL of 7 March 2025 Mr Chia set out what he considered to be 'reasonable advice' for the purposes of paragraph (e) of the 2025 Undertaking. One aspect identified was that advice should only be sought if all executors agreed. He provided SHL with a very detailed 'Administration Plan', running to some 22 pages.[12] In this document Mr Chia identified that $505,583 of the assets 'are subject to withholding tax requirements that need specific handling'. He set out some observations on the relevant tax obligations in Australia and the United Kingdom.
9. Ms Chia informed SHL that she would not consent to Mr Chia preparing the taxation returns.
10. SHL proposed to engage Jennifer Bruce, a Chartered Accountant, of Curbe Accounting. Ms Bruce's estimate of her fees were under $5,000. Mr Chia would not agree to the appointment of Ms Bruce to prepare the returns. Instead, he proposed that Ms Bruce conduct an 'independent third-party review' of any filing prepared by him. Ms Bruce was concerned that this approach would cause her insurance issues as Mr Chia was not her employee. Further, the return would have to be prepared as a paper lodgment rather than using her software system. This would all cause her quote to triple and for the likely time for the ATO to respond be more like 4 to 8 weeks as opposed to the usual timeframe of 2 weeks for processing electronic lodgments. SHL raised the prospect of obtaining a judicial direction on the issue. Upon being informed of Ms Bruce's concerns, Mr Chia remained firmly of the view that he should prepare the tax returns. In the end, Ms Bruce advised SHL that she would decline any instruction to act in the matter.
11. The third area of contention was whether SHL had received sufficient instructions from Mr Chia to collect the assets and proceed with the administration. Mr Chia asserted that he had provided the instructions sought; SHL requested those instructions in a number of emails.
12. The fourth area of contention was whether SHL would make an interim distribution. SHL proposed to proceed in line with its usual practice which is that distribution of the Estate is not undertaken until all the assets have been accumulated and all liabilities have been attended to, including taxation compliance and withholding. Mr Chia was keen for there to be a significant interim distribution as he was experiencing financial difficulties.
13. In May and June 2025, Mr Chia lodged various applications in the 2024 Action seeking payment of an interim distribution as well as for directions regarding the administration of the Estate.
14. The correspondence annexed to the Pizzata Affidavit records a steadily deteriorating relationship between SHL and Mr Chia.
15. On 10 June 2025 there was a Zoom video conference call between Ms Pizzata, Mr Chia and Ms Chia (June Zoom Call). Ms Pizzata deposes the following as to this call:[13]

On 10 June 2025 at 10.30am, I attended a Teams, then Zoom videoconference between Jean-Paul and Daniele. During this meeting, I observed Jean-Paul's behaviour to be very obstructive. Jean-Paul commenced the Teams videoconference by recording it, and had an unannounced guest with him, who he introduced as his partner Kevin. When Daniele joined the call, I asked if she consented to the recording, and Jean-Paul's guest being present, which she told Jean-Paul and I, and I believed to be true, that she did not consent to either. Jean-Paul stated that he did not know how to stop the recording of the meeting. This necessitated the movement of the call to Zoom so the videoconference would not be recorded, and me directing that Kevin was not to participate or contribute to the discussion. During the call, I observed Jean-Paul to be very aggressive and bullying towards Daniele, who I observed to be defensive. At a point during the call, Daniele's connection dropped out for unknown reasons. Jean-Paul and I waited for Daniele to rejoin the call for a few minutes, which did not occur. After the videoconferencing failed, I followed up with a one-on-one call with Daniele, in which I observed her to be distraught and upset. During this call Daniele told me, and I believe it to be true, that she would agree to a further interim distribution of the estate in the amount of $100,000.00.

I will later set out the recollections of Ms Chia, Mr Chia and Mr McGerty as to the June Zoom Call.

1. As mentioned, on 12 June 2025, SHL wrote to Mr Chia and Ms Chia advising that it would be ceasing to act. Given that this was the catalyst for the 2025 Action, it is instructive to quote their letter in full:[14]

I write to address matters relevant to the administration of the estate of your mother, Susan Marie Chia, and as to whether Solomon Hollett Lawyers can continue to act for Jean-Paul and Daniele.

It is with deep regret that I have had to write this letter, however the recent actions of Jean-Paul have left me with no alternative.

Allegations concerning Solomon Hollett Lawyers conduct

As you are aware, I am not in the office this week. Notwithstanding this I have remained in daily contact with Annabel Pizzata and provided directions to her in addressing the issues that were the subject of the meeting on Tuesday 11 June 2025 with Jean-Paul, Daniele and Annabel.

The Orders of His Honour Justice Tottle dated 6 February 2025 ('Orders') recorded that Jean-Paul and Daniele each gave a personal undertaking to the Court, inter alia, that they had jointly instructed and would continue to jointly instruct Solomon Hollett Lawyers to administer the estate of your late mother, and on this basis the Court issued a joint grant of probate to Jean-Paul and Daniele. It is my understanding that in the absence of the appointment of Solomon Hollett Lawyers to administer the estate, that a grant of probate would not have been made by the Court.

The terms of your late mothers Will provided that your appointment as substitute executors was to be a joint appointment, as opposed to a joint and several appointment. Accordingly, the grant of probate was a joint grant to Jean-Paul and Daniele, meaning that all decisions need to be jointly made and instructions jointly provided.

My firm has repeatedly made it clear that pursuant to the Orders, and in accordance with your late mother's Will, we act jointly for Jean-Paul and Daniele in your respective capacities as the joint executors of your late mother's estate. We have made it clear that we cannot favour one executor's instruction over the other, nor can we act on the instruction of a single executor.

Since the appointment of Solomon Hollett Lawyers, Jean-Paul has on a number of occasions taken issue with the above joint appointment and sought to enforce a decision made solely by him that is not a joint decision.

Jean-Paul has recently published the following concerning matters:

• In affidavits dated 15 May 2025 and 4 June 2025, which I understand were provided to the Supreme Court, Jean‑Paul made various allegations alleging improper conduct by Solomon Hollett Lawyers in the administration of your late mother's estate.
• In his letter dated 30 May 2025 Jean-Paul alleged that SHL had acted improperly in failing to act upon his sole instructions, notwithstanding the appointment of joint executors, in relation to making a further interim distribution.
• In his email dated 9 June 2025 addressed to Daniele and Solomon Hollett Lawyers Jean-Paul referred to his affidavit dated 4 June 2025 documenting what he referred to as 'SHL's professional and conduct failures'. The email further indicated, inter alia, that SHL's conduct would be the subject of judicial scrutiny and that Jean-Paul would seek resolution through the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
• In his email dated 10 June 2025, sent following the meeting on 10 June 2025, Jean-Paul alleged that SHL had demonstrated bias in the administration of your late mothers estate. The email reserved the right for Jean-Paul to address SHL's conduct with the regulators.

The above examples are not intended to be a conclusive list of the various allegations that Jean-Paul has made since the appointment of Solomon Hollett Lawyers pursuant to the Orders but rather are examples of the allegations made on a number of occasions by Jean‑Paul about Solomon Hollett Lawyers.

Each and every allegation made by Jean-Paul concerning the alleged misconduct of Solomon Hollett Lawyers or maladministration of the estate by Solomon Hollett Lawyers is denied. I am confident that if Jean-Paul proceeds to lodge a complaint with the Legal Practice Board concerning the conduct of Solomon Hollett Lawyers, that all such allegations will be shown to have no merit and will not be upheld.

Cost Agreement dated 20 January 2025

A Cost Agreement was entered into between Jean-Paul, Daniele and Solomon Hollett Lawyers dated 20 January 2025. The Cost Agreement was accepted by Jean-Paul on 20 January 2025 and by Daniele on 27 January 2025.

Clause 16.1.4 of the Terms and Conditions encompassed in the Cost Agreement provide that Solomon Hollett Lawyers may cease acting for you in circumstances where in our reasonable opinion it appears that mutual confidence and trust no longer exists between Jean-Paul, Daniele and Solomon Hollett Lawyers.

It is my opinion, in light of the various allegations that Jean-Paul has made concerning the conduct of Solomon Hollett Lawyer set out above, that mutual confidence and trust no longer exists between Jean-Paul, Daniele and Solomon Hollett Lawyers.

Clause 16.2 of the Terms and Conditions provides that if Solomon Hollett Lawyers ceases to act for you in the above circumstance, we will provide you with written notice to this effect.

Solomon Hollett Lawyers intention to cease to act

I hereby give notice under clause 16.2 of the Terms and Conditions that Solomon Hollett Lawyers intends to cease acting for the joint executors of the Estate of the late Susan Marie Chia on the basis that I have formed the reasonable opinion that mutual confidence and trust no longer exists between Jean-Paul, Daniele and Solomon Hollett Lawyers.

Next Steps

In light of the undertaking given the Court by Jean-Paul and Daniele concerning the joint instruction of Solomon Hollett Lawyers, I consider that it is necessary for the Supreme Court to be informed that Solomon Hollett Lawyers are ceasing to act for the joint executors. I intend to separately write to the Court to advise that Solomon Hollett Lawyers has ceased to act for the executors and to inform the Court that the joint executors will liaise with the Court in relation to the undertakings they have given to the Court.

A request will need to be made to the Supreme Court by the joint executors to determine if the joint executors can be released from the undertakings given or whether it will be necessary to modify the undertakings given to permit an alternate firm of solicitors to be appointed in place of Solomon Hollett Lawyers. I would caution that a failure to take this step could place the joint executors in contempt of the undertakings given to the Court. I strongly recommend you each take legal advice on this issue as a matter of urgency.

On your joint instructions, payment directions have already been issued to Bankwest, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, MLC and GESB for the collection of estate assets. It is expected that these funds will be remitted to Solomon Hollett Lawyers' Law Practice Trust Account in accordance with the payment directions, and in compliance with order (d) of the Orders. Solomon Hollett Lawyers will continue to send you Trust Account Statements on receipt of these amounts, on request, and from time to time.

Enclosed is a draft invoice for the legal services provided by Solomon Hollett Lawyers up to and including today's date. We intend to deduct the invoiced amount from the funds held in our Law Practice Trust Account, pursuant to Clause 13.2 of the Terms and Conditions. No further fees will be charged, consistent with our intention to cease acting in this matter.

The total fees incurred with Solomon Hollett Lawyers for your matter now amount to $15,295.41, which exceeds the original estimate provided in the Cost Agreement. This increase is due to challenges in obtaining instructions, conduct as outlined in this letter, and additional work not contemplated by the Scope of Works set out in the Cost Agreement. This additional work includes but is not limited to, management and liaison with you as to the following matters:

(a) interpretation of the Orders;

(b) the scope of the tax agent's appointment;

(c) the 'estate of' bank account;

(d) An additional interim distribution;

(e) The meeting on Tuesday 11 June 2025; and

(f) The motions and affidavits filed by Jean-Paul for further judicial review.

Following the appointment of a new firm of solicitors to act for the joint executors and upon receipt of a joint instruction of the executors, or upon receiving an order of the Court, any state monies held by Solomon Hollett Lawyers will be released to the estate new solicitors trust account.

I look forward to hearing from the new solicitors for the Estate once the above matters have been attended to.

1. The 2025 Action was commenced by writ of summons filed 2 July 2025. The writ was endorsed with a statement of claim. The primary relief sought was an order pursuant to AA s 29 revoking the Original Grant and an order that letters of administration with the Will annexed be issued to Mr Chia. There we some alternative administrative sought orders as well as an order for restitution or damages against Ms Chia based on her conduct as joint executor. Mr Chia filed an amended statement of claim on 1 August 2025 seeking relief in similar terms.
2. On 13 August 2025, I made an order that, until further order, no party may deal with the property the subject of the Estate.
3. On 21 August 2025 I made orders in the 2024 Action finalising the involvement of SHL and for payment of an interim distribution equally to Mr Chia and Ms Chia. Specifically:

1. By 25 August 2025, the defendant serve a copy of these orders on Solomon Hollett Lawyers. 2. Solomon Hollett Lawyers be directed to pay the amount of $100,000 out of the amount held in its trust account in relation to the estate of the late Susan Marie Chia late of 340 Anchorage Road North, Mindarie, in the State of Western Australia (Estate) to each of the plaintiff and the defendant into an Australian bank account which each nominates in writing. 3. Solomon Hollett Lawyers be paid their costs of compliance with these orders out of the funds of the Estate in their trust account. 4. By 12 September 2025 Solomon Hollett Lawyers pay into the Supreme Court all money of the Estate in their trust account, net of the amount paid out pursuant to orders 2 and 3, and notify the parties in writing as to the amount paid into court. 5. By 12 September 2025, Solomon Hollett Lawyers are to file and serve an affidavit:

(a) describing their administration of the Estate;
>
> (b) identifying the assets of the Estate;
>
> (c) providing an account of the moneys paid into and out of their trust account; and
>
> (d) annexing a copy of any advice provided with the parties in relation to taxation issues arising in relation to the Estate.

1. By 12 September 2025, Solomon Hollett Lawyers lodge at the court all papers, documents, accounts, receipts or other documents related to Estate assets and liabilities in their possession, save that they be permitted to keep copies of any document necessary for their records and for the taxation process. 2. Solomon Hollett Lawyer have general liberty to apply in relation to these orders. 3. The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the implementation of these orders. 4. There be no order as to the costs of these orders. 5. The action be listed for a directions hearing on 2 September 2025 at 4:15pm, with the plaintiff having liberty to attend by video link.
2. At the same hearing, I made orders that the 2025 Action proceed to trial on the basis that the issues for determination are only:

(a) whether the Original Grant should be revoked;

(b) if the Original Grant is to be revoked, the identity of the replacement administrator; and

(c) any issues relating to the finalisation of the administration of the Estate of the Deceased.

1. Ms Chia filed her defence on 29 August 2025. In it she said that the relationship between her and Mr Chia has broken down, the two of them have been unable to make joint decisions to administer the Estate and that Mr Chia has demonstrated animosity towards her. She identified certain conduct of Mr Chia towards SHL which, she asserts, render him not a fit and proper person to administer the Estate. She agrees that the Original Grant should be revoked, but says that an independent administrator should be appointed.
2. The fact that Ms Chia does not seek to be appointed as administrator means that I do not need to consider the material presented by Mr Chia that she would not be an appropriate person to be so appointed.
3. On 2 September 2025, I listed the 2025 Action for trial on 12 November 2025. Mr Chia, who resides overseas, was given leave to appear by video link. In the end, he came back to Australia for the trial and appeared in person. I ordered that the trial proceed on affidavit evidence, with no party having the right to cross-examine the deponent of any affidavit save with the leave of the court. I then made programming orders for the filing of affidavits and submissions. I also ordered that any affidavit filed by SHL in compliance with the orders made in CIV 2330 of 2024 on 21 August 2025 stand as evidence at the trial of the 2025 Action (which was the Pizzata Affidavit).
4. On 2 September 2025, I made an order in the 2024 Action giving the parties leave to refer to in, or annexe to, any affidavit filed for the purposes of the trial in the 2025 Action any documents received from the other or a third party in the course of this action.
5. On 10 September 2025 SHL filed the Pizzata Affidavit in compliance with paragraph 5 of the orders made on 21 August 2025.
6. On 11 September 2025, SHL paid $746,232.01 into court where it remains.
7. On 12 September 2025, in compliance with paragraph 6 of the orders made on 21 August 2025, SHL lodged at the court all papers, documents, accounts, receipts or other documents related to Estate assets and liabilities in their possession.
8. In the Plaintiff's Submissions, Mr Chia goes into some detail as to his concerns as to the manner in which SHL carried out its retainer.[15] The only issue of central relevance in the conduct of SHL is its recommendation that an external accountant be engaged to prepare the taxation returns of the Deceased and the Estate. I discuss this at [99] ‑ [101]. Mr Chia concludes his submissions by saying that the evidence of Ms Pizzata 'is so compromised that should be afforded little or no weight by the court'.[16] I disagree. The Pizzata Affidavit is a comprehensive record of the involvement of SHL in the administration of the Estate, filed in accordance with the orders I made in the 2024 Action on 21 August 2025. In any event, I have primarily relied on the Pizzata Affidavit to set out the chronology of events which provides the context in which the present action is to be determined. Mr Chia goes on to submit that the conduct disclosed may warrant referral to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC).[17] I again disagree. My review of the materials does not suggest that SHL engaged in any conduct that would warrant me giving any consideration to referral to the LPCC.

• 51 Mr Chia begins the Plaintiff's Affidavit by setting out in some detail his qualifications and experience. He describes himself as a management consultant with over 27 years' experience in professional services. His experience is mainly in the financial services section, including auditing, business assurance, taxation (including cross‑border taxation) and regulatory compliance. He has worked in both Australia and the United Kingdom. He concludes:[18]

I believe my experience in financial services and elements of the specialist knowledge and expertise I possess are both relevant and applicable to the administration of an estate with assets in Australia with a beneficiary that is a tax-resident in the United Kingdom, ensuring full compliance with the relevant and applicable tax laws of both jurisdictions.

• 52 Mr Chia deposes that from the outset he has offered to apply his professional expertise and detailed knowledge of the industry and its processes and procedures to ensure the efficient and compliant administration of the Estate. For example, on four occasions he has 'set out in full and planned all tasks and activities involved in the administration of the estate'. These were provided to Ms Chia, her lawyer, the court and SHL.[19]

1. Mr Chia sets out in some detail his concerns as to the appointment of the Public Trustee. However, for the reasons I have already mentioned ([7]), I do not need to consider this material.[20]

• 54 Mr Chia deposes that substantial progress has already been made under his hand, being: [21]

(a) in December 2024, an Estate TFN (tax file number) was obtained;

(b) in 2023, he completed all his identity checks, with documentation refreshed ahead of SHL's engagement;

(c) the trust return for FY2023/24 is in progress;

(d) the Government Employees Superannuation Board (GESB) component breakdown was obtained on 11 June 2025; and

(e) major receipts, including the GESB lump sum and Aegis RAD return, have been processed.

1. Mr Chia rejects the allegations of bullying in the Pizzata Affidavit. He describes them as incorrect, not supported by contemporaneous records and inconsistent with his conduct throughout, which he describes as 'open, cooperative, and focused on progressing the administration'.[22] He says that the Pizzata Affidavit selectively recounts events and, in places, misdescribes them, giving examples.[23]
2. In relation to the June Zoom Call Meeting, he deposes:[24]

The single Teams/ Zoom meeting relied upon by Ms Pizzata to suggest 'bullying' omitted the substantive issues discussed (including the purpose of an 'Estate Of' account, preparation of tax filings and their independent review, and conceding to the Defendant's demand for the pet-care costs to be borne by the estate).

I acknowledge that in some correspondence specifically related to the obstruction of the interim distribution, my language was firm, even blunt, reflecting the urgency of my financial circumstances and the frustration of repeated and ongoing obstruction. However, contemporaneous notes, meeting transcripts, and the substance of those communications show that my focus remained on progressing the estate administration and ensuring compliance. At no stage did I engage in personal abuse, threats of violence, or intimidation. My communications consistently related to fiduciary duties, legal obligations, and the timely performance of executor responsibilities.

1. At this point in the chronology, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of Mr McGerty. The evidence before the court included a transcription of Mr McGerty's notes of the matter, made a week or so later. Mr McGerty records some of the technical difficulties that occurred in setting up the meeting. As to the substance of the meeting, his note provides:[25]

Awkwardness started the meeting - Jean Paul asks Daniele if she wishes to open as she called the meeting. Jean Paul says something about the duties of executors, Daniele Snaps back at him for this.

I try to temper things - A.P is their lawyer, perhaps it would be helpful for all it [she] reminded them of the nature of that role. Daniele tells me to 'butt out' and AP doesn't seem to have the presence of mind to set the tone.

[Jean Paul]: Taxation/tax treaty/double taxation relief comes with greater procedural compliance. Taxable assets of the estate -> estate of account, to keep it separate from other assets, and so easier to transparently account for how funds have been handled. Compliance issue with respect to accounting for movement of monies not one of minimising tax exposure (is that where opposition comes from?)

'Estate of' account could be opened in any of (main banks in Australia?) with both executors as account holders so funds would have the same safeguard against unilateral action.

Daniele seems much less concerned which [sic] J.P. can estimate the worth of the tax owed by the estate would be small (approximately 10 to 20k AUD) relative to the assets of the estate (but costs must come from 'JP's half not my half' - no awareness of executor role).

Daniele wants to discuss the dog she has been caring for - considerable expenses on medical care for the dog (approximately 4 to 5k AUD). Wants estate to cover it. (If dog was part of estate why only say now?) Dog now very ill - hay be most humane to put her down. Daniele keen to have JP determine whether the dog is put down. (Desire to have JP determine the fate of the dog feels surreal.)

Father's accounts: Daniele wants her mother's estate to pay for this?? Confusion about 'the estate should pay for those accounts' comment. I ask AP to clarify that the filing of accounts is usually paid out of the estate the accounts are being filed for. Daniele is being advised by another firm in respect of this so AP rightly urges Daniele to consult them.

Daniele drops off the call (misunderstood A.P.?)

Meeting thus ends slightly unclearly. A.P. to write up note to clarify.

1. Drawing together his affidavit and submissions, Mr Chia identifies six main concerns as regards the appointment of an independent lawyer to administer the Will.
2. The first is that the fact that he was appointed by his mother as an executor. This should be given significant weight in the decision as to who should now be appointed executor. The court should not lightly disregard the interests of the executor.
3. The second is that there is no legal work involved to finalise the administration of the Estate. The only real outstanding issue is the filing of the tax returns for the Deceased and the Estate. These tasks require an accountant not a lawyer. There is no reason why a lawyer should be given the task of finalising the administration, only to outsource the key remaining component to an accountant.
4. The third relates to his taxation position. Mr Chia is concerned to ensure that the taxation treatment of the Estate does not prejudice him. He is of the view that as he is not a resident of Australia for taxation purposes, there will be an amount required to be withheld from his share of the Estate. Unless he is provided with the correct documentation, he will not be able take advantage of his right to claim the tax withheld through the UK taxation authorities. He feels that he has the experience to deal with the taxation returns in a way that ensures he is not prejudiced. He is concerned that any tax accountant engaged would not have the experience to deal with the issues arising due to him being a UK resident for taxation purposes.
5. The fourth is that the appointment of an independent lawyer will incur further costs to the Estate. These costs would include the cost of duplicating work already done. On the other hand, he would complete the administration at no cost.
6. The fifth is that the appointment of an independent lawyer would inevitably further delay the finalisation of the Estate.
7. The sixth is that the appointment of an independent lawyer will, in his view, inevitably lead to further conflict.[26] In his affidavit, Mr Chia set out his poor experience with the local practitioners involved with the administration of the Estate to date. In his words:[27]

Two local firms have already been involved in aspects of this matter. Their involvement generated fees and delay but did not meaningfully progress the administration. This reflects the practical difficulty of introducing third party practitioners mid-stream where the estate carries cross-border tax and reporting requirements.

In particular, prior practitioners:

a) defaulted to extended correspondence in place of focused, practical issue-resolution, which slowed progress and increased cost;

b) sought or relied upon background from a conflicted former solicitor for my co-executor, which altered their approach and undermined neutrality; and

c) overlooked or disputed basic cross-border compliance needs (e.g. estate account vs trust account flows; record-keeping for UK-Australia DTA), requiring further clarification and slowing progress.

Against that history, the appointment of yet another firm would not resolve the underlying issues. It would simply add further cost, delay, and duplication. At this stage there is no substantive legal work required - only the orderly completion of administrative tasks already identified and partly progressed.

Fit to the Will and proportionality

I am already appointed by the Will as a substitute executor, possess the relevant expertise in administration and cross-border obligations, and am willing to complete the administration at no cost to the estate. Against that backdrop, appointing another practitioner would be disproportionate and contrary to the best interests of the beneficiaries.

Conclusion

For these reasons, an 'independent' administrator nominated by the Defendant would introduce avoidable duplication, additional cost, delay, and compliance risk without offsetting benefit. By contrast, I am able and willing to complete the administration efficiently, neutrally, and in full compliance with the relevant Australian and UK requirements, at no cost to the estate.

1. In the Defendant's Affidavit, Ms Chia deposes that from shortly after the death of the Deceased, Mr Chia was in frequent contact with her about applying for a grant of probate in relation to the Will. This included an email dated 15 September 2023 (that is, a week after the death of the Deceased) with detailed questions. Mr Chia came to Perth around the end of October 2023, but Ms Chia was unable to meet with him. The intent at that stage was for a joint application for probate to be made.[29]
2. Ms Chia noted that the address which Mr Chia gave in his application for a grant of probate was: '1/4 Litchfield Street, Victoria Park, Western Australia'. This caused her concern as, to her knowledge, he resided in the United Kingdoms and had flown in from the United Kingdom at the end of October 2023.[30]
3. Ms Chia sets out in some detail the interactions which she and her lawyers had with Mr Chia in the period from November 2023 to November 2024 when the 2024 Action was commenced. It is sufficient for me to observe that the parties were not able to work cooperatively together. In order to determine the issues currently before the court, I do not need to ascribe causation or blame for this state of affairs.
4. The one issue of note for present purposes is the difference in approaches on the issue of taxation. In a detailed letter to Ms Chia's lawyers, Dawson Davies, dated 4 April 2024, Mr Chia told Dawson Davies:[31]
   1. Estate administration - beyond simplification

While I appreciate the effort to simplify the estate administration process, it's crucial to address the complexity introduced by my status as a UK domiciled beneficiary. The outline provided does not fully capture the intricacies of my fiduciary responsibilities, nor my personal tax obligations and disposition across multiple jurisdictions.

As an Australian non-resident citizen, a director of 2 registered companies in England and Wales, and a director of a company and tax resident of Estonia, with an agreed outstanding personal tax position with HMRC in the UK, and also imminently to file company returns with significant losses, applying to offset these against past liabilities, my experience in the industry suggests I am almost certainly facing an audit by HMRC.

My obligation to adhere to international tax regulations and treaties is paramount, and I must ensure for my own protection that all financial dealings and sources are sufficiently documented to provide a fully auditable and demonstrable position. While UK inheritance tax does not apply, nor does CGT from the disposal of property apply in Australia, I must ensure that I am able to evidence the derivation of any beneficial amounts. It is vital that all actions taken are meticulously documented to prove the source of income as nontaxable under the applicable jurisdictions and double-taxation treaties, thereby preventing potential undue taxation or penalties in the UK or contamination of the broader estate.

Given these considerations, the role of an accountant in this context extends beyond mere calculation and submission of our mother's final tax filings. The appointment and cost of a Perth-based accountant that is a practitioner in multijurisdictional tax affairs are likely to be non-trivial in fees.

I may be able to outsource the performance of my accounts, but that does not absolve my accountability. Any indemnity from an agent that covers my liabilities both personal and professional as a company officer, would come with a substantive cost and would still necessitate a level of involvement and oversight on my part that far exceeds a simple review and receipt of a cheque. Detailed validation and reconciliation will be required to ensure accuracy and compliance, further negating implied efficiencies or cost savings. It is therefore not in my interests to outsource this effort from either a cost or risk perspective.

I am committed to ensuring that the estate is managed responsibly and in compliance with all relevant laws and treaties. However, this commitment necessitates a collaborative approach that fully appreciates the intricacies at play, particularly concerning my personal and fiduciary responsibilities.

1. Ms Chia deposes that without the advice of an appropriately qualified and independent tax lawyer or accountant, she is not able to document and certify that any payments to Mr Chia are non-taxable. She adds that she is not aware that Mr Chia has any formal qualifications in tax, law or accounting that qualify him as an expert to give advice on multi-jurisdictional tax affairs.[32]
2. There was then correspondence between Dawson Davies and Mr Chia attempting to resolve the issues in dispute and move forward with a joint application.[33] These efforts were not successful.
3. Ms Chia deposes that the 2025 Undertakings were agreed following negotiation between Dawson Davies, acting for her, and Mr Chia.[34]
4. Ms Chia then refers to some of the correspondence passing between SHL, her and Mr Chia, and the Supreme Court.[35]
5. Ms Chia's evidence in relation to the 10 June 2025 Zoom conference call is in the following terms:

Prior to the zoom meeting on the 10 June 2025 I was quite hopeful that we would be able to progress my mother's estate and create a road map to move forward. The meeting started poorly with Jean-Paul trying to record the meeting. His partner was also present at the meeting and I made it clear that I did not want him to be present. I did not see it as appropriate for him to be present. I made Ms Pizzata aware of my discontent with this matter. I found Jean-Paul's behaviour aggressive as he repeatedly raised his voice to me. His Partner also interjected in the conversation when Jean-Paul was speaking in an aggressive manner towards me, it felt link an attack. It was clear from this meeting that we could not continue to work together.

1. She then refers to subsequent emails from Mr Chia, before concluding:[36]

Based on Jean-Paul's emails and behaviour in the Zoom, I determined that Jean-Paul and I were in dispute which was likely to require further independent advice and the engagement of a tax agent to resolve. In those circumstances I determined that it was not appropriate to distribute $400,000 out of the approximately $414,000 held in Solomon Hollett's Trust account at the time.

1. After SHL ceased to act, Dawson Davies wrote a letter dated 1 July 2025 proposing the appointment of a new solicitor on the same basis as SHL or an application to the court to either have Mr Chia removed as executor or an independent executor appointed. Dawson Davies stressed that 'any tax returns are to be prepared by a qualified and independent account, not by you'.[37]
2. Ms Chia also deposes that on 9 October 2025 her lawyers undertook a search of the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines for England and Wales and located an unsatisfied judgment against Mr Chia dated 7 July 2025 in the amount of just under £4,000.[38]
3. Ms Chia further deposes that she has recently been to see a counsellor to assist her to deal with the grieving process. She tells me that the counsellor made it clear that the stress from dealing with Mr Chia's demands, threats and controlling behaviour in relation to her mother's Estate have made this process significantly harder.[39]
4. She concludes:

I consent for the revocation of the grant of probate to Jean-Paul and I believe it is necessary for the due and expedient administration of my mother's estate since Jean-Paul and I cannot work together.

I have proposed that an independent administrator be appointed because I do not believe that Jean-Paul is a fit and proper person to complete the administration of the estate and I am concerned that he will not be able to perform his duties impartially due to the animosity that he has expressed towards me and the allegations he has made against me in the last 2 years.

1. I begin by acknowledging that Mr Chia is a litigant in person. As a litigant in person, he is entitled to some leniency in relation to compliance with the court rules.[40] The court is required to approach the documents in which he articulates his case with some flexibility.[41] The court needs to be astute to ensure that, in a poorly expressed or unstructured document in which he sets out his case, there is no viable case which, with appropriate amendment or permissible assistance from the court, could be put into proper form.[42] A 'frequent consequence of self‑representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy'.[43]
2. The court's obligation in the case of a self‑represented litigant is to give sufficient information about the practice and procedure of the court to mean that there is a fair hearing. In any specific case the content of the principle depends on the circumstances of the case.[44]
3. One 'abiding difficulty' faced by the court is 'the tension between the duty of a judge to ensure a fair and just trial and the requirement that the court maintain a position of neutrality and impartiality as between the parties'.[45] The court also needs to ensure that any latitude given to one party as a litigant in person does not deprive the other of their right to procedural fairness and a fair hearing.[46] The balance is ordinarily struck by limiting the assistance given to a litigant in person to that which is necessary to overcome, so far as is reasonably practicable, the procedural disadvantages a litigant in person faces by reason of not being legally trained.[47]
4. Mr Chia seeks orders pursuant to AA s 29 revoking the grant of probate to him and Ms Chia. AA s 29(1) contains a wide power to revoke the 'administration of an estate' in the following terms:

Where administration of the estate of a person has been granted the Court may, at any time, upon the application of any person interested in the estate or of its own motion on the report of the Principal Registrar, revoke the administration.

1. However, as I observed recently in McCullough v Haigh as Executor, it is an open issue as to whether or not the power in AA s 29(1) is confined to grants of letters of administration, or includes grants of probate.[48] That being so, it is sufficient in this case to rely on the ample power of the court to revoke a grant of probate and appoint a replacement pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 18 or the inherent jurisdiction of the court.[49] The revocation of a grant of probate is equivalent to the setting aside of a court order so the power to do so is not exercised as of course or as of right.[50]
2. The ultimate purpose of the court's power of revocation is to ensure the due and proper administration of the estate and of the interests of the beneficiaries. The power may be exercised where it is necessary for the due administration of the estate. The court seeks to identify what is best for the welfare of the beneficiaries and of the estate as a whole.[51] The court will, however, 'be very cautious and sparing' in the exercise of this power.[52]

• 86 One well established class of case in which it will be necessary for the due administration of an estate to revoke a grant of probate or administration is where joint executors can no longer work together. As Pritchard J observed in Woodley v Woodley [No 2]:[53]

Executors have also been passed over, or the grant of probate to them revoked, where their relationship with the other executors has deteriorated to the point where there is no realistic expectation that they will be able to work together in the interests of the estate...

Furthermore, if it is shown that a history of past family conflict, or bitter relations between executors or trustees of an estate, and the beneficiaries of the estate, is likely to impact on the decisions made by the executor or trustee, and to leave the beneficiaries with the suspicion that the trustee's decisions will be tainted by the trustee's emotions or self‑interest, that may also warrant the removal of the executor or trustee...

1. On the other hand, her Honour made it clear, that the fact that a named executor who is also a beneficiary is in position of conflict of interest, will not ordinarily require removal of the named executor.[54]

Furthermore, in cases involving an alleged conflict of interest on the part of a named executor, the existence, or possibility, of a conflict of interest does not of itself justify passing over the named executor. One reason for that approach is that many executors will have a conflict, which will arise by virtue of the terms of the will itself, such as the appointment of an executor who is a debtor to the estate ... Ordinarily, the Court will be entitled to assume that a person named as an executor will act properly, such as by paying their just debts, as the deceased expected the executor to act...

1. Although in Woodley Pritchard J was dealing with this issue in the context of an application to pass over an executor named in the will, the observations I have quoted apply equally to the question of whether a grant of probate to a named executor should be revoked. The primary concern of the court is the same, being 'to ensure that the estate will be duly and properly administered according to the terms of the will, in the interests of the parties beneficially entitled to the estate'.[55] Relevant for present purposes, her Honour also acknowledged the likelihood of additional costs to an estate if it were to be administered by an independent administrator.[56] Her Honour also noted the weight to be given to the decision of the deceased to appoint the named executor or executors.[57]

1. Both parties agree that the Original Grant should be revoked.[58]
2. Acting with the caution I am required, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to revoke the Original Grant. It is sufficient for me to identify two reasons for coming to this conclusion.
3. The first is that the Original Grant was made in the context of the 2025 Undertaking central to which was the joint engagement of SHL. With the decision of SHL to cease to act, the 2025 Undertaking became unworkable. The premise on which the Original Grant was made fell away.
4. The second is that it is clear from the evidence of both Mr Chia and Ms Chia that the relationship between the two of them has broken down and they cannot work cooperatively together. I included the recollections of Ms Pizatta, Ms Chia, Mr McGerty and Mr Chia of the Zoom conference on 10 June 2025 as their different recollections provide compelling evidence as to the breakdown in the relationship and inability to work together. Ms Chia and Mr Chia were not able to work cooperatively to be appointed as joint executors in the non‑contentious jurisdiction; this is axiomatic from the fact that after a years' worth of engagement, no grant in terms of the Will had been applied for and made. They were not able to work cooperatively with SHL even with the 2025 Undertaking in place. Again, I do not need to ascribe causation or blame for this state of affairs.

To whom should letters of administration now be granted?

1. The contested issue is to whom letters of administration should now be granted.
2. Mr Chia says it should be him solely.
3. Ms Chia says that one of the two independent lawyers she identified, Mr Blatchford and Mr England, should be appointed. From their affidavits, I am readily satisfied that each is amply qualified and experienced to undertake the role of an administrator of the Estate.
4. The considerations which I have set out at [85] apply equally to the appointment of a replacement for an executor following revocation of the initial appointment.[59] In addition, in considering the identity of the replacement:[60]

(a) the wishes of the Deceased are relevant;

(b) the preferences of beneficiaries are relevant;

(c) in identifying the appropriate replacement, the court should have regard to whether the appointment would promote or impede the due and proper administration of the Estate;

(d) the court should be concerned to avoid appointing, as a replacement, a person or party who might have a potential conflict of interest; and

(e) the replacement should not be appointed with a view to promoting the interests of some of the beneficiaries in opposition to the interests of other beneficiaries.

1. As to the wishes of the Deceased, it is clear that, in the event that her husband predeceased her, her wish was for both her children to jointly undertake the administration of her Estate. For the reasons I have just identified ([92]), that cannot occur. So her wishes cannot be fulfilled. I add that it was never the wish of the Deceased that Mr Chia be appointed solely to administer her Estate.
2. As to the preferences of the beneficiaries, Mr Chia wishes to be appointed as sole administrator. Ms Chia is opposed to the sole appointment of Mr Chia. In my view, given that is clear from the evidence of both Mr Chia and Ms Chia that the relationship between the two of them has broken down, and they cannot work cooperatively together, Ms Chia's preference for someone independent to be appointed must be given significant weight.
3. As to what option would best promote the due and proper administration of the Estate, the issue of who should prepare the taxation returns of the Deceased and the Estate is central. In my view, the due and proper administration of the Estate requires these taxation returns to be prepared by an Australian registered tax agent. Ms Chia's insistence that this occur is both reasonable and understandable. The proposal of SHL for an independent Chartered Accountant to file the last tax returns of the Deceased and the tax returns of the Estate was entirely appropriate. Moreover, their proposal to do so was, in my view, 'reasonable advice' for the purposes of the 2025 Undertaking. Mr Chia's rejection of this proposal was in breach of the 2025 Undertaking. I do not have to form a view on whether or not Mr Chia's view about the application of Australian taxation laws is the correct view. It may well be. But that is not the point. The point is that the taxation issues relating to the Estate need to be addressed by an Australian registered tax agent. That practitioner can be informed that one of the beneficiaries is resident in the United Kingdom, which may or may not have taxation consequences.
4. I appreciate Mr Chia's concern to ensure that he is not prejudiced by the approach taken to taxation of the Estate ([61]). However, that concern can readily be met by the appointment of Australian registered tax agent with experience in dealing with overseas beneficiaries, in particular one resident in the United Kingdom.
5. I have no confidence that if Mr Chia were to be given sole responsibility for the administration of Estate, that the taxation returns would be prepared by an Australian registered tax agent. The due and proper administration of the Estate strongly favours the appointment of an independent administrator.
6. As to whether either Mr Blatchford or Mr England might have a potential conflict of interest, each deposes to the effect that they have nor prior dealings with the parties (aside from being approached to consider appointment) and have no financial or other relevant interest in any of the assets of the Estate.[61] In his affidavit, Mr Chia deposes:[62]

An administrator selected by one party cannot be perceived as fully independent. Even if acting impartially, the appearance of alignment with the nominating party would likely generate further dispute and satellite issues, to the detriment of the estate.

There is no basis for this concern nor any wider concern that either lawyer may have a conflict of interest or that they may not be impartial as between the two beneficiaries.

1. Mr Chia raises the concern that the appointment of an independent lawyer to administer the Estate will cost more than if he undertook this role personally. He makes the point that the remaining tasks in the administration of the Estate do not require legal work, rather accounting work. However, it is the case that the Estate must be administered in accordance with the law. This includes compliance with the NCPR, including r 37 relating to the passing of accounts. Having said that, I accept that it is the case that the appointment of an independent administrator will cost more than if Mr Chia undertook the tasks personally.
2. Along similar lines, Mr Chia is concerned that the appointment of an independent lawyer will inevitably lead to further conflict ([64]). On the one hand, the history of the case suggests that this may well occur. On the other, the orders appointing an independent administrator can attempt to reduce any potential areas of conflict.
3. Counsel for Ms Chia raises the concern that, notwithstanding what Mr Chia said in his initial application for a grant of probate, he is resident outside Western Australia. As such he is said to be beyond the immediate supervision of this court. There is what I would describe as a strong predisposition in the AA for the administrator to be a resident within the jurisdiction.[63] In response, Mr Chia referred to AA s 54. AA s 54(1) provides that an executor or administrator appointed under that act or by the court is deemed to be a resident of Western Australia. AA s 54(2) requires a person who is not a resident to file a notice of address for service prior to the sealing of the grant. If he were to be solely appointed, the order could be structured to require him to file an address for service prior to the grant being made. So the fact that Mr Chia resides overseas becomes neutral to the analysis.
4. There is a further factor. In the hearing before me, Mr Chia became highly emotional and upset on a couple of occasions, to the extent that twice I had to take a short adjournment in order to give him time to compose himself. On occasions, he expressed his frustrations directly to Ms Chia who was present in court. It is evident from the written material he relied on, his submissions and his demeanour in court, that the way in which the administration of the Estate has progressed (or not progressed) has had a significant emotional impact on him. It has had a similar impact on Ms Chia ([78]). Grief is a powerful emotion. Be that as it may, Mr Chia's demeanour during the trial leads me to the view that he is too emotionally involved for me to have confidence that he would undertake the role of a sole executor in an objective and dispassionate manner.[64]
5. Taking all these matters into account, I am firmly of the view that we are at the stage in the history of the administration of this Estate where it is necessary to appoint an independent administrator. I accept that this will add costs. However, the cheapest option has failed, being for the parties to do it themselves. The next cheapest option of jointly engaging a lawyer has also failed. Given the issues which have beset this relatively straight forward administration to date, I am readily satisfied that the appointment of an independent lawyer is the only way now that the due and proper administration of the Estate can be promoted.

1. As to the identity of the independent administrator, at the hearing before me, counsel for Ms Chia expressed a preference for Mr England essentially on costs grounds, so I will appoint him (New Administrator).[65]
2. I will hear from the parties as to the precise form of the orders necessary to replace Mr Chia and Ms Chia with the New Administrator. To assist the parties, it is appropriate that I express my preliminary views. There will need to be orders in both the 2025 Action and the 2024 Action.
3. In the 2025 Action, the orders required to replace Mr Chia and Ms Chia with the New Administrator begin with revoking the Original Grant. The Original Grant was delivered up to the Supreme Court by SHL.
4. The appropriate form for the appointment of the replacement is the grant of letters of administration to the New Administrator with the Will attached.[66] The terms of the grant will be settled by a probate registrar.
5. There needs to be an application to the probate registry to facilitate the replacement grant being made. Ms Chia should be required to make this application within a few days of the orders being made.
6. The probate registrar should then be directed to give the New Administrator all the documents brought into court by SHL. Ms Chia should be required to serve on the New Administrator a copy of the Pizatta Affidavit as that provides a detailed description of the actions undertaken to date. The New Administrator should also have access to all the documents filed in the 2024 Action and the 2025 Action, in case that is required. This will reduce the work that needs to be done by the New Administrator to get up to speed with the administration, an issue of concern to Mr Chia.
7. The moneys paid to court should be paid out to the New Administrator at his direction. Whether that is to his firm's trust account or a separate account for the Estate is a matter for the New Administrator.
8. As foreshadowed, the orders appointing the New Administrator should attempt to reduce any potential areas of conflict.
9. To resolve the debate as to how the taxation returns are to be prepared, the order should direct the New Administrator to engage an Australian registered tax agent to prepare any taxation returns required to be lodged by the Deceased or her Estate. The cost of this is to be borne by the Estate.
10. The other potential area of conflict is the payment of a further interim distribution. Given the money currently paid into court, I am minded to make a further distribution to each party of $100,000. Having done so, my expectation is that the New Administrator will adopt the same practice as SHL[67] and not make any further distribution until all the assets of the Estate have been accumulated and the liabilities of the Estate (including taxation liabilities) have been ascertained.
11. Mr Chia expressed some concern with the actions of SHL in communicating with the former lawyers for Ms Chia. There was no basis for that concern. However, to avoid this type of conflict in the future, there should be orders that the New Administrator is able to freely communicate with lawyers at SHL. This will facilitate the administration being conducted in an efficient and cost effective manner.
12. As to costs, my preliminary view is that the costs incurred by each party to date have been reasonably and properly incurred for the benefit of the Estate of the Deceased. It is not in issue that the basis for Original Grant fell away with the decision of SHL to cease acting, so an application to revoke the Original Grant was required. Both parties were entitled to put their positions to the court. I view their costs as having been necessarily and properly incurred for the benefit of the Estate and so should be ordered to be paid out of the Estate. Mr Chia as a litigant in person should have his disbursements, including court filing fees, paid out of the Estate. He is not entitled to be paid anything further.[68] Ms Chia, being represented, should have her costs taxed as between legal practitioner and client and paid out of the Estate.[69] Whist these costs can be taxed as soon as practicable, they should not be paid immediately, but should be brought to account in the final distribution of the Estate.
13. I am of the same preliminary view for the costs of the 2024 Action. That action is now effectively at an end, so it can be otherwise be dismissed.
14. There should be liberty to the parties and the New Administrator to apply for directions as to the administration of the Estate. This can include, if necessary, a request for judicial advice pursuant to Trustees Act 1962 (WA) s 92. As I have just set out, my preliminary view is that the litigation costs of the Estate to date should be borne by the Estate. However, if there are issues brought back to me for determination which ought not to have required judicial intervention, the option is open for any costs unnecessarily incurred, including both legal costs and the costs of the New Administrator, to be deducted from the share of the Estate of the recalcitrant party.
15. In summary, my preliminary view of the substantive orders in this action required to give effect to this decision are:
    1. The grant of probate in the estate of Susan Marie Chia (Estate) made to Jean-Paul Marc Chia and Daniele Monique Chia on 7 February 2025 be revoked.
    2. The probate registrar be directed to issue a grant of letters of administration, with a copy of the will of the Deceased dated 27 June 2012 annexed, to Simon Christopher England (New Administrator) of Level 7, 16 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia, with the terms of the grant to be settled by the probate registrar.
    3. Within 3 business days of the date of this order, the defendant is to file an application for a grant of probate in terms of the order in paragraph 2.
    4. Within 3 business days of the grant of probate being made, the New Administrator is to serve a copy on each party.
    5. The Principal Registrar provide to the New Administrator with a copy of any court document in this matter requested by the New Administrator.
    6. The New Administrator is to engage an Australian registered tax agent to prepare any taxation returns required to be lodged by the Deceased or her Estate, the cost of which is to be borne by the Estate.
    7. The New Administrator and Solomon Hollett Lawyers are at liberty to communicate with each other in relation to the administration of the Estate.
    8. There be liberty to the parties and the New Administrator to apply for directions as to the administration of the Estate in this action, including a request for judicial advice pursuant to Trustees Act 1962 (WA) s 92.
    9. The disbursements of the plaintiff of the action to date are to be taxed and paid from the Estate.
    10. The costs and disbursements of the defendant to date are to be taxed on a legal practitioner and client basis, and paid from the Estate.
    11. The payments of the amounts in orders 9 and 10 are to be brought to account in the final distribution of the Estate.
16. In the 2024 Action, my preliminary view is that the following orders are required:
    1. Upon the grant of probate for the Estate of Susan Marie Chia (Estate) being made pursuant to the orders made on 2 December 2025 in CIV 1704 of 2025 (Grant), the probate registry is to give to on the administrator appointed pursuant to that grant (New Administrator) all documents brought into court in relation to the Estate by Solomon Hollett Lawyers (SHL).
    2. Within 3 business days of being served with the Grant, the defendant is to serve a copy of the affidavit of Annabel Pizzata sworn on 10 September 2025.
    3. From the funds paid into court in relation to the Estate, an amount of $100,000 be paid out to each of the plaintiff and the defendant into an Australian bank account which each nominates in writing.
    4. The balance of the funds paid into court in relation to the Estate be paid out to the New Administrator.
    5. The Principal Registrar provide to the New Administrator with a copy of any court document in this matter requested by the New Administrator.
    6. The New Administrator and Solomon Hollett Lawyers are at liberty to communicate with each other in relation to the administration of the Estate.
    7. The disbursements of the plaintiff of the action are to be taxed and paid from the Estate.
    8. The costs and disbursements of the defendant are to be taxed on a legal practitioner and client basis, and paid from the Estate.
    9. The payments of the amounts in orders 7 and 8 are to be brought to account in the final distribution of the Estate.
    10. The action is otherwise dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[9] ts 12.11.25, pages 54 - 55. See also [46].

[11] Supreme Court Probate Matter PRO 8007 of 2023.

[12] Pizzata Affidavit, pages 78 - 100.

[14] Affidavit of Daniele Monique Chia, sworn 20 October 2025 (Defendant Affidavit), attachment DMC22.

[15] Plaintiff's Submissions, [68] - [91].

[17] Plaintiff's Submissions, [91], [103].

[18] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [8] - [15].

[19] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [16] - [17].

[20] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [18] - [20], [24] - [32].

[22] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [44] - [45].

[23] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [49] - [51].

[24] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [46] - [47].

[27] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [36] - [40].

[28] Plaintiff's Affidavit, [42] - [43], also [57] - [61].

[29] Defendant's Affidavit, [12] - [22], attachments DMC1 and DMC2.

[30] Defendant's Affidavit, [23], [27].

[31] Defendant's Affidavit, [36] - [38], attachment DMC7.

[32] Defendant's Affidavit, [39] - [40], attachment DMC7.

[33] Defendant's Affidavit, [39] - [51], attachment DMC8 - DMC10.

[34] Defendant's Affidavit, [54] - [60].

[35] Defendant's Affidavit, [64] - [73], attachments DMC 14 - DMC 19.

[36] Defendant's Affidavit, [75] - [78].

[37] Defendant's Affidavit, [61], attachment DMC13.

[38] Defendant's Affidavit, [82], attachment DMC23.

[40] Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 [10] (judgment of the court).

[41] Zaghloul v Bayly [2021] WASCA 125 [82] (judgment of the court); Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534, 536 ‑ 537 (Kirby P with whom Hope & Samuels JJA agreed).

[42] Sethi v Bhavsar [2020] WASCA 52 (Sethi) [27] (reasons of the court).

[43] Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23 [5]; [1994] HCA 23; (1994) 68 ALJR 509, 510; [1994] HCA 23; (1994) 121 ALR 148, 150 (judgment of the court); Kounis v Westpac Banking Corporation [2023] WASCA 185 [11] (reasons of the court); Sethi [27].

[44] Wreford v Castleyheard Pty Ltd [No 3] [2024] WASCA 2 [55] (judgment of the court).

[45] Zerjavic v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 40 (Zerjavic) [74] (judgment of the court).

[46] Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36 [47] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ); Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149 [76] (judgment of the court); Moleirinho v Talbot & Olivier Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 65 [51] (judgment of the court).

[48] McCullough v Haigh as Executor [2025] WASC 352 [21] (Gething J) (McCullough); Rogers v Rogers [2009] WASC 358 [16] (EM Heenan J) (Rogers).

[49] McCullough [21]; Nicholl v Mattingly [2025] WASC 297 [23] (Gething J) (Nicholl); Re Banning; Ex Parte Banning [2018] WASC 313 [33] (Vaughan J) (Banning); Smith v Partridge [2018] WASC 128 [25] (Pritchard J) (Smith) [26]; Rogers [22] - [23]; Porteous v Rinehart [1998] WASC 270; (1998) 19 WAR 495, 505 - 506 (White J).

[50] McCullough [21]; Nicholl [23]; Banning [34].

[51] Nicholl [27]; Wood v Wood [No 4] [2014] WASC 393 [174] - [175] (Kenneth Martin J); Banning [34], [37]; Smith [26] - [27], [38]; Rogers [23].

[52] Nicholl [27]; Rogers [32]; Banning [34].

[53] Woodley v Woodley [No 2] [2017] WASC 94 [47] - [49] (Pritchard J) (references omitted) (Woodley).

[54] Woodley [54] (references omitted).

[58] Plaintiff's Submissions, [31]; Defendant's Submissions, [26].

[59] McCullough [25]; Nicholl [27]; Woodley [54]; Walter v Hasslinger [2022] VSC 460 [31] (Kaye JA) (Walter).

[60] McCullough [25]; Nicholl [28]; Walter [31]; Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 646; (2015) 106 ACSR 207 [120] - [124] (Brereton J); Grey v Youngson [2006] WASC 123 [50] - [51] (Hasluck J).

[61] Blatchford Affidavit, [1] - [4]; England Affidavit, [4].

[63] See for example: AA s 25(1)(b), s 34, s 36, s 38.

[68] Cachia v Haines (1994) 179 CLR 409, 410 - 411, 417 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and McHugh JJ).

[69] See generally: Nicholl [56]; Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate [2025] WASC 145 (S) [7] - [28] (Gething J); Smith [54]; Tsaknis v Lilburne [2010] WASC 152 [89] (EM Heenan J); Buckton v Buckton [1907] UKLawRpCh 98; [1907] 2 Ch 406, 414 (Kekewich J).