Dunstan v Pringle

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Tanya Dunstan (Plaintiff)
Margaret Pringle (First Defendant)
Michelle Irwin (Second Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
L Ellison SC (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Kenneth Harrison (First Defendant)
Collins Clare Solicitors (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00245534

Publication restriction: Nil

Ex Tempore JUDGMENT

1. The first defendant (Pringle) is a barrister. Kerry Anne Dunstan (the deceased) was a friend of Pringle. The deceased died on 16 November 2022 in the Australian Capital Territory.

2. The deceased left a will dated 1 August 2015 (the Will) appointing Pringle as Executor and Trustee and leaving the residue of her estate to her three daughters Julia Dunstan, Jamie Dunstan and Tanya Dunstan, the plaintiff, in equal shares.

3. The deceased was predeceased by her mother, Mary Kathleen Irwin, to whom I shall refer to as Mary with no disrespect intended, who died on 9 September 2022, leaving a will dated 28 August 1986. Mary bequeathed all her real and personal estate in equal shares to the deceased and her other daughter Michelle Irwin (Michelle), the second defendant, provided they survived her by 30 days. Both did. Thus, half of Mary’s estate passed to the estate of the deceased.

4. Mary’s appointed executor, her husband, predeceased her and the substitute executors, Michelle and Mary’s nephew, Peter James Gavin, both renounced their appointments. It thus fell to Pringle, to apply for letters of administration to complete administration of the deceased’s estate. On 29 November 2024, this Court granted Pringle letters of administration with copy of Mary’s will annexed (the original having not been found). Pringle retained a solicitor. Mary’s estate was gathered in and her debts were paid.

5. At the time of her death, Mary occupied a unit in a retirement community. Mary had paid an ongoing contribution to the operators. On her death approximately $300,000 was refunded to her estate. Mary also left some personalty and jewellery, which was distributed to Michelle and the deceased’s daughters (including the plaintiff) according to their wishes.

6. In May 2025, Notices of Intended Distribution of both estates were published. The residue of Mary’s estate payable to each beneficiary – Michelle and the deceased’s estate – was $199,458.37.

7. The deceased had passed away leaving very little herself. The amount distributable to each of the three beneficiaries of her estate was $49,218.52. A cheque dated 6 June 2025 for that amount was drawn on the trust account of the solicitors acting for Pringle in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff provided an address in Western Australia to which her jewellery and the cheque were sent.

8. However, the evidence establishes that the cheque, both words and numbers, was altered by increasing it by $40,000 to $89,218.52. The cheque, as altered, was presented to the Bank and honoured, depleting the solicitor’s trust account, correspondingly. It may safely be inferred that the plaintiff perpetrated this fraud.

9. The solicitor notified the Law Society and the police. I do not know what ultimately happened in that connection, but I propose to direct the Prothonotary to send the papers to the prosecuting authorities both in the Australian Capital Territory and in Western Australia.

10. Ultimately, the Bank refunded $32,000 (which still stood in the account into which the altered cheque had been paid) and itself restored $8,000 to the solicitor’s trust account. There appears to remain a shortfall.

11. Perhaps remarkably, but then again, perhaps not, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against Pringle and Michelle by way of a Statement of Claim filed 25 June 2025. The instrument (excluding the verifying affidavit) is in the linked Schedule to this judgment.

12. In the same vein, perhaps ironically, but then again, perhaps not, it will be observed that the plaintiff seeks that the existing administration of both estates be discharged as it was obtained in bad faith and has resulted in estate fraud and mismanagement of two estates. In the Relief Claimed section, she seeks a finding that Michelle has committed fraud by falsely assuming role of executor with no signed will who has taken whatever she wanted from the estate without legal authority, and a finding that Pringle has aided and abetted estate fraud in addition to mishandling the deceased’s estate. She seeks a declaration that she is a beneficiary of Mary’s estate (which she plainly is not) and for herself to be appointed administrator of Mary’s estate. In the Pleadings and Particulars section, she claims that Pringle and Michelle have committed, conspired and been complicit in the estate fraud of both estates.

13. The verifying affidavit contains the following para 4:

I support this document verifying Mary Kathleens’ estate has been pillaged via estate fraud from Michelle Irwin / Thomas, the second respondent and that Margaret Pringle, the first defendant was aware of this estate fraud and has failed her fidelity to notify the court of this offending, rendering her unsuitable to retain the role of estate administrator.

14. By amended Notice of Motion filed on 26 August 2025 Pringle moves for an order under r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the Statement of Claim be dismissed. That rule provides:

13.4 Frivolous and vexatious proceedings

(1) If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings—

(a) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, or

(b) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or

(c) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court,

the court may order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim.

(2) The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under subrule (1).

15. The application is supported by two affidavits of Pringle and an affidavit from her solicitor. Additionally, there is an affidavit from Michelle supporting the application.

16. The plaintiff did not appear on the application, but this morning my Chambers received what might be described as a small barrage of emails from her, making it plain that she would not be appearing and making (what I consider to be patently frivolous and vexatious) criticisms of the Court and of Lindsay J who had some earlier involvement in the proceedings. Unfounded criticisms are also directed at Pringle and Michelle.

17. These proceedings meet each of the criteria in r 13.4(1). The material before me establishes that the administration of both estates by Pringle has been unexceptional, indeed, exemplary. The assets have been gathered in and distributed and but for some small outstanding matters the estates have been administered. No basis for the assertion that the deceased was bankrupt is made out. No basis for any allegation of impropriety, let alone fraud or pillaging, is properly pleaded or disclosed. No cognisable cause of action or basis for any relief is pleaded.

18. The suggestion that the Court would or should appoint a person whom the Court has found fraudulently to have altered a cheque in her favour from the estate, to an office of responsibility to administer the estate is frivolous.

19. The cumulative effect of these matters makes it clear that the proceedings are an abuse of the processes of this Court.

20. The proceedings against Pringle are dismissed with costs.

Schedule (1.15 MB, pdf)

**********