Morgan (deceased), Re [2025] QSC 258 | Case summary

Morgan (deceased), Re [2025] QSC 258 | Case summary | Zoe

[1]

[1] This is an application by Kerina Jayne Strauss[1] for letters of administration with the will of her deceased father Leslie Alfred Morgan.

[2]

[2] Leslie Alfred Morgan was married to Doreen Jane Morse Morgan.
[3] Leslie and Doreen had two children being Kerina and Bradley Dene Morgan.
[4] Leslie died on 22 February 2025, leaving a will dated 13 January 1971.
[5] By his will, Leslie:

[3]

(a) appointed Queensland Trustees Limited as executors and trustees;

(b) left his entire estate to Doreen on condition that she survived him for one calendar month; and

(c) made provision in the event that Doreen did not survive him.

[4]

[6] Queensland Trustees Limited changed its name to Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited on 23 June 1989.
[7] On 15 January 2013, pursuant to s 601WBG of the Corporations Act 2001, Perpetual Trustee Company Limited became the successor in law to Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited.
[8] On 23 March 2025, Doreen renounced any right to administer Leslie's estate. On the same day, Bradley also renounced any right of administration of Leslie's estate.
[9] Leslie owned a house which he held with Doreen as joint tenants. Upon Leslie's death, his interest passed to Doreen by survivorship and did not fall to the estate.
[10] Apart from personal property, the only other asset is a credit balance in an account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia of a little over $100,000.00.
[11] The present application has been advertised pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.
[12] Kerina seeks to have the application determined without oral hearing.

[5]

(a) should the application be determined without oral hearing?; and

(b) should letters of administration with the will be given to Kerina?

[6]

Should the application be determined without oral hearing?

[7]

[14] Rule 489 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides for decisions without an oral hearing of an application:

[8]

"489 Proposal for decision without oral hearing

[9]

(1) A party making an application, including an application in a proceeding, may propose in the application that it be decided without an oral hearing.

[10]

(2) If the applicant proposes the application be decided without an oral hearing, the court must decide the application without an oral hearing unless -

[11]

(a) under rule 491, the court considers it inappropriate to do so; or

(b) under rule 494, the respondent requires an oral hearing; or

(c) under rule 495, the applicant abandons the request for a decision without an oral hearing; or

(d) the Chief Justice or Chief Judge suspends the operation of this rule by direction."

[12]

(a) jurisdiction to proceed without an oral hearing is granted;

(b) that jurisdiction is enlivened by a proposal by an applicant; and

(c) the proposal must be accepted by the Court in the absence of any of the circumstances prescribed in rr 489(2)(a)-(d).

[13]

(a) the only persons interested in the application are Doreen and Bradley;

(b) they have both consented to the appointment of Kerina and there is no suggestion that either of them wish to be heard;[2]

(c) Kerina has not abandoned the request for a decision without an oral hearing; and[3]

(d) the Chief Justice has not suspended the operation of r 489 by direction.[4]

[14]

[17] Consequently, the only question is whether it is appropriate to proceed without oral hearing.[5]
[18] The estate is a modest one.
[19] Affidavits have been filed which demonstrate that the three remaining members of Leslie's nuclear family (Doreen, Bradley and Kerina) all consent to Kerina administering the estate.
[20] The factual substratum of the application is not contentious, and the legal principles are well settled.
[21] It is appropriate to deal with the application without oral hearing.

[15]

Should there be a grant of letters of administration to the applicant?

[16]

[22] Rule 603 of the UCPR prescribes the priority for letters of administration with the will. Rule 603 provides:

[17]

"(1) The descending order of priority of persons to whom the court may

[18]

grant letters of administration with the will is as follows -

[19]

(b) a life tenant of any part of the residuary estate;

[20]

[21]

(e) a person otherwise entitled to all or part of the residuary estate, by full or partial intestacy;

[22]

(g) a creditor or person who has acquired the entire beneficial interest under the will;

(h) anyone else the court may appoint.

[23]

(2) The court may grant letters of administration with the will to any person, in priority to any person mentioned in subrule (1).

[24]

(3) If 2 or more persons have the same priority, the order of priority must be decided according to which of them has the greater interest in the estate.

[25]

(4) Each applicant must establish the person's priority by providing evidence that each person higher in the order of priority is not entitled to priority because of death, incapacity or renunciation.

[26]

(5) A document providing evidence for subrule (4) must be an exhibit to the affidavit in support of the application.

[27]

(6) The applicant need not establish priority for a person equal to or lower than the applicant in the order of priority."

[28]

[23] The trustee of the residuary estate[6] (Perpetual Trustee Company Limited), has renounced administration.
[24] There is no life tenant or remainderman of any part of the residuary estate.[7]
[25] Doreen is the sole beneficiary,[8] and she has renounced administration.
[26] There is no creditor relevant to r 603(1)(g).
[27] Leslie and Doreen had two children, who are the obvious choices to administer the estate.
[28] One of those, Bradley, has renounced administration, leaving Kerina as the person who should be granted administration of the estate.
[29] There is nothing apparent which would disentitle Kerina to a grant of administration. The quality of the material and submissions filed in support of the application, where she has acted for herself, demonstrate her capacity to act as executor and she should be appointed.

[29]

[30] There are no legal costs as Kerina represented herself on the application.
[31] Any out-of-pocket expenses such as filing fees etcetera, if paid by Kerina, ought to be reimbursed to her from the estate. No order is sought but none is necessary.

[30]

[32] The following orders are made:
1. Pursuant to r 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 1999, this application is to proceed without an oral hearing.
2. Subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, letters of administration with the will for the estate of Leslie Alfred Morgan (deceased) be granted to the applicant Kerina Jayne Strauss as administrator.

[31]

[1] I will refer to each of the persons mentioned by their first given name for convenience and without meaning any disrespect.

[32]

[2] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 494 and 489(2)(b).

[33]

[3] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 495 and 489(2)(c).

[34]

[4] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 489(2)(d).

[35]

[5] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 489(2)(a).

[36]

[6] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 603(1)(a).