Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij [2025] QSC 217

Judgment (28 paragraphs)

[1]

[1] Manuel Khoury died on 20 October 2022. By a will dated 15 September 2022 he appointed the applicant and the respondent as his executors. They are both children of the deceased. He had previously executed a will in 2017. Probate has not been granted.
[2] Mr Khoury, the applicant, seeks to propound the 2022 will. Ms Kooij, the respondent, has lodged a caveat. Mr Khoury failed in an application to remove the caveat.
[3] On this application, Mr Khoury seeks many orders - 18 in all - which mostly relate to the issue of the costs of administration of the estate. The following give a flavour of the case sought to be made:

[2]

"1. That no further proceedings, applications, motions, or directions concerning the estate of Manuel Khoury, including any attempt to remove an executor, seek joinder, amend probate, or compel mediation, be heard or progressed unless full itemised disclosure of all legal costs and disbursements incurred or anticipated to be claimed against the estate is first served on all parties. Any attempt to proceed without such disclosure shall be summarily dismissed with costs and deemed a breach of an equitable process and fiduciary responsibility.

[3]

4. The Court is further asked to determine whether any previous cost orders, including those made against the Applicant, can and should be assessed for reasonableness in light of the absence of prior full cost disclosure. No further procedural steps should proceed until this review is complete and fiduciary transparency assured.

[4]

8. That the Court prohibit any party from misrepresenting the Applicant's conduct as obstructive. His actions have been a reasonable response to the Respondent's failure to disclose costs, her strategic retention of executor rights while pursuing adverse relief, and her lodging of a caveat against the probate process. His position reflects lawful fiduciary restraint and proportionate response, not defiance.

[5]

12. That the Applicant's self-represented status be recognised as a reasonable and necessary position in the circumstances, and that he be protected from any adverse cost order that arises solely from his insistence on fiduciary compliance, estate preservation, or demand for cost transparency.

[6]

14. That the Court reaffirm its supervisory role in probate and declare that any executor raising valid concerns about undisclosed costs or potential estate depletion is fulfilling, not breaching, fiduciary duty. Such concerns must be treated as aligned with the Court's own obligation to ensure transparent and lawful estate administration."

[7]

[4] Ms Kooij has cross-applied for orders requiring Mr Khoury:

[8]

(a) to comply with an order made by Muir J on 12 February 2025, and

(b) to pay the costs of an abandoned mediation.

[9]

[5] A brief outline of earlier proceedings will assist in the understanding of the background to this application.
[6] On 27 November 2024, Muir J concluded that there was doubt as to whether the deceased had testamentary capacity and that the 2022 will would have to be proved in solemn form. She made orders, including:

[10]

"3. The parties are directed to ... jointly authorise the firm Bickell & Mackenzie to provide a response to the Respondent's request dated 9 December 2022 for a Larke v Nugus statement with respect to the circumstances surrounding the making and execution of the will of the late Manuel Khoury dated 15 September 2022 (the 2022 Will).

[11]

4. Within seven days of the response to the request referred to at paragraph 3 above, the Respondent is to engage a suitably qualified expert to provide a report on the testamentary capacity of the Deceased in respect of the 2022 Will.

[12]

6. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 12 September 2024."

[13]

[7] At a review hearing on 12 February 2025 Muir J ordered that Mr Khoury and Ms Kooij do all things necessary to either cause the invoice rendered by the expert to be paid out of funds held by the Commonwealth Bank in the deceased's name or cause Ms Kooij to be reimbursed from that account if she paid the invoice. Mr Khoury has not agreed to arrange payment of the expert's invoice.
[8] Muir J also referred this matter to a mediation and required that the parties do all things necessary to cause the mediator's invoice to be paid from the Commonwealth Bank account. The mediation was to take place on 23 May 2025. Ms Kooij and other interested parties were in attendance but Mr Khoury refused to participate on the basis, it appears, of the alleged non-disclosure of the costs which have been incurred by Ms Kooij. The mediation was abandoned and the mediator's fee has not yet been paid.
[9] The costs order made by Muir J on 27 November 2024 was the subject of further proceedings before Williams J on 11 April 2025. Mr Khoury applied for a stay of enforcement of a Registrar's costs order. One of his grounds was Ms Kooij's "refusal to disclose financial information concerning the estate to a co-executor and beneficiary." Williams J dismissed the application and ordered that Mr Khoury pay Ms Kooij's costs on the indemnity basis.
[10] Mr Khoury applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the orders of 27 November 2024 and 11 April 2025 referred to above. That application was dismissed on 29 July 2025[1].

[14]

[11] In essence, Mr Khoury claims that he is entitled to receive a "full itemised disclosure of all the legal costs and disbursements incurred or anticipated to be claimed against the estate" before any steps that might give rise to such costs are taken. The short answer to that claim is that there is no such entitlement.
[12] Probate has not been granted and Ms Kooij has not sought her costs from the estate at this point. Her costs are not the costs of the estate until she establishes a right to claim against the estate. She has not yet sought to do so. If, and when, she does, then her entitlement to do so and the reasonableness of the costs can be considered. Mr Khoury was made aware of that position at the hearing on 11 April 2025 before Williams J and, again, at a review before Muir J.
[13] Mr Khoury claims that there have been breaches of fiduciary duty but makes those claims in broad, sweeping and un-particularised assertions. There is no evidence to support his contentions. The affidavits upon which he relies are not evidence of anything other than the deponents' suspicions.
[14] Ms Kooij is entitled to spend her money as she sees fit. If she seeks to recover her expenses against the estate then that will be subject to the usual procedures by which such claims are assessed.
[15] In Mr Khoury's written submissions he concludes with these contentions:

[15]

(a) That Ms Kooij's refusal to disclose legal costs is a "deliberate weapon designed to strangle this Estate and to coerce the applicant through fear and silence". In support of that he relies on what he submits is a decision of this Court. He refers to [redacted]. The case which is reported at [2017] QSC 105 is Attorney-General v Guy which is a decision concerning the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. On the Queensland Judgments website there is no case with the name [redacted]. Further, he purports to quote from that decision to this effect: [redacted]. I have been unable to find that series of words used in any reported or unreported decision in Queensland or in cases able to be searched in Lexis Advance.

(b) The arguments that disclosure is premature, or that no claim is yet made, must be dismissed. He relies upon Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka v His Eminence Petar [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66 at [123] for that proposition. That case does exist. But it is not authority for the point advanced by Mr Khoury and paragraph [123] has nothing to do with the point advanced. He goes on to cite two other cases - neither of which exist.

(c) Concealing costs from a co-executor breaches mutual fiduciary duties. He relies on [redacted]. That case does not exist. There is a decision with that citation but it has no relevance. The same applies to his reference to [redacted]. The decision with that citation is a case which concerns the construction and interpretation of contracts. He also refers to s 54(1)(a) of the . does exist. There is no sub paragraph (a) of that section and the section relates to the protection of persons acting informally.

[16]

[16] I will assume for present purposes that Mr Khoury has not deliberately concocted authorities in an attempt to mislead the court. It is more likely that he has relied upon an AI chatbot and that these contentions and citations are the result of some form of AI hallucination. Whatever the source of these citations, there is no authority for the propositions he advances.
[17] When these reasons are published generally, I will follow the practice used by the Federal Court in Luck v Secretary, Services Australia[2]. The names and citations of the non-existent case names and the reference to non-existent extracts will be redacted so that the false information is not propagated further by artificial intelligence systems having access to these reasons.

[17]

[18] The mediation was to be held at the direction of the Court. Ms Kooij has been put to the expense of preparing for, and attending at, the mediation and the mediator has not been paid.
[19] The only reason for it not proceeding was Mr Khoury's insistence on his misguided view about the requirement to disclose costs. As was observed by Muir J at the review on 4 June 2025, the false issue relating to legal costs "sidetracked and completely derailed the mediation". He should be required to pay the costs thrown away and the mediator's fee.

[18]

[20] Muir J has already made an order that Mr Khoury and Ms Kooij do all things necessary to cause the invoice for the expert's fee to be paid out of the deceased's bank account or for Ms Kooij to be reimbursed from the deceased's bank account should she pay the invoice. Ms Kooij has paid that fee. I find that Mr Khoury has failed to comply with Muir J's order. I will make an order extending time for compliance[3].

[19]

[21] Mr Khoury is, as I have observed above, misguided with respect to his contentions about the requirement for disclosure of costs in these circumstances. He has been told by members of this Court on two occasions that he misunderstands or misapprehends the manner in which costs are dealt with in an estate matter. He has failed on his application.
[22] He has disobeyed orders of the Court. Ms Kooij has been forced to respond to this imprudent application and has been forced, by reason of Mr Khoury's failure to comply with orders made by this Court, to bring her cross-application. She has been successful.
[23] I will hear the parties on the costs of these applications.

[20]

1 That the Application filed 4 June 2025 is dismissed.

[21]

That the Applicant must, within 21 days of the date of this order, do all things necessary to cause the Respondent to be reimbursed from the deceased's Commonwealth Bank account in respect of her payment of the invoice of Clinical Corporate Consulting in the sum of $6,600.

[22]

If you, Mark Khoury do not obey this order within the time specified, you will be liable to court proceedings to compel you to obey it and punishment for contempt.

[23]

That the Applicant must, within 21 days of the date of this order, pay the mediator's fee of Mr Lee Nevison in the sum of $7,150.

[24]

If you, Mark Khoury do not obey this order within the time specified, you will be liable to court proceedings to compel you to obey it and punishment for contempt.

[25]