National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) (Application to Supply Pharmaceutical Benefits Following the Death of an Approved Pharmacist – Documentary Evidence) Determination 2025

The Determination revolves around a narrow set of legal concepts that structure eligibility to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits after the death of an approved pharmacist. The statutory anchoring concept is the "approved pharmacist", a defined expression in s 84 of the National Health Act 1953 (see s 5 note). The decision-making trigger is paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act; this Determination specifies what documentary evidence is required to satisfy that paragraph. The principal statutory instruments referenced are the National Health Act 1953 (for authority and operative effect), the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 (for who may certify copies), and state and territory births, deaths and marriages registries (as the producers of death certificates).

Certified copy: The Determination adopts a functional definition of "certified copy" as a copy certified in writing by a person mentioned in section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 to be a true copy (s 5). The statutory delegation to that list matters because only those classes of certifiers can produce the required certified copy. The Determination therefore links federal administrative evidence requirements to the regime governing statutory declaration certifiers.

Government-issued document: The Determination requires a government-issued document that contains both a photograph and a signature for the first tier of identity proof (s 5; s 6(1)(a)). The instrument gives non-exhaustive examples and one temporal constraint for passports: an Australian passport issued in the applicant's name within three years of its expiry date. For applicants who cannot meet that standard, the Determination permits an alternative identity route: a certified copy of a document containing the applicant’s signature together with a Commonwealth statutory declaration that the applicant is the person named (s 6(1)(b)). Thus the Determination provides two alternative identity verification tracks with different evidentiary burdens.

Estate status distinctions: The Determination distinguishes three estate status states of the deceased pharmacist: testate (there is a will), intestate with a pending application for letters of administration, and intestate with no application made. Each status triggers discrete documentary requirements (s 6(4)-(7)). Testate applicants must submit a certified copy of the will plus a statutory declaration that it is the last will and testament, to the applicant’s best knowledge. Applicants who have applied for letters of administration must produce a certified copy of that application and a statutory declaration that, to the applicant’s best knowledge, there is no reason the application would be refused. Applicants who have not yet applied must provide a statutory declaration committing to apply "as soon as possible" and that to their best knowledge there is no reason such an application would be refused.

Evidentiary standard: The Determination repeatedly uses subjective, knowledge‑based statutory declaration language: "to the best of the applicant’s knowledge", and for intestate‑not‑applied cases "the applicant will, as soon as possible, apply". Those phrases set a de jure standard of declarant honesty and reasonable belief rather than an objective proof standard, but the Determination does not itself define how decision-makers must treat those declarations or what evidentiary thresholds will be applied beyond accepting the required documents as satisfying paragraph 91(2)(c).

Interplay with state processes: By relying on death certificates and on wills, applications for letters of administration, and the probate/letters process, the Determination makes federal PBS-supply administrative eligibility contingent on State and Territory factual determinations and documentation created under state law. The instrument therefore pieces together federal administrative requirements with state-produced documentary materials.

Repeal and replacement: The Determination repeals the 2015 Determination in full (Schedule 1). The effect is that the 2015 instrument no longer operates; the 2025 instrument sets the current documentary specification.

Primary affected parties are applicants who seek to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits under the National Health Act following the death of an approved pharmacist. The Determination uses the term "applicant" throughout and frames the documentary obligations around that role (s 6). Those applicants will commonly be persons with roles in the deceased pharmacist’s estate: executors named under a will, administrators seeking letters of administration, or other persons who assert they are, or are likely to become, an executor or administrator (s 6(2)). The Determination explicitly contemplates applicants who have not yet obtained formal probate or letters of administration by permitting statutory declarations promising to apply as soon as possible (s 6(7)).

Secondary affected parties include:

• The estate of the deceased approved pharmacist, including beneficiaries, because the applicant’s ability to obtain permission to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits post‑death will affect the estate’s capacity to continue pharmacy operations and realise value in pharmacy stock and PBS dispensing entitlements.

• Pharmacy businesses operating at premises where the deceased was the approved pharmacist, since the licensed status and PBS-supply continuity depend on satisfying paragraph 91(2)(c) through the documentary routes prescribed.

• State and Territory registries and courts that provide the primary documentary materials the Determination requires, notably births, deaths and marriages registries (death certificates), probate registries (wills and letters of administration), and the offices that accept applications for letters of administration. The Determination imports those state-produced documents into the federal administrative eligibility process.

• Commonwealth administrative officers responsible for assessing applications under paragraph 91(2)(c). Those officers will apply the Determination as the documentary checklist for acceptance.

• Third parties relying on documentary certification standards, including persons authorised under the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 to certify copies, because the Determination requires certified copies to be certified by those specified persons (s 5 definition of "certified copy").

Patients who obtain PBS medicines from a pharmacy at premises where the approved pharmacist has died are indirectly affected because the Determination determines what an applicant must produce to obtain permission to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits during the transitional period following the pharmacist's death.

The Determination also affects cross-jurisdictional practice. Because it requires government-issued documents and death certificates produced under state law, applicants who reside interstate or offshore must ensure their documents meet the listed requirements and are certified by persons specified in the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023. Where an applicant’s identity documents or estate documentation come from different jurisdictions, the applicant bears the practical and administrative burden of creating certified copies in an acceptable form.

Finally, persons who might apply but are not estate executors or administrators, for example pharmacy staff or family members who intend to become administrators, are affected by the clause permitting applicants who are likely to become executor or administrator to produce evidence to that effect (s 6(2)). That phrase broadens the statutory class of applicants but also raises interpretive questions about acceptable forms of evidence to show the likelihood of becoming executor/administrator.

This Determination creates an evidentiary duty on applicants: to lodge the specific documentary items listed in s 6 to satisfy paragraph 91(2)(c) of the National Health Act 1953. The core duties on an applicant are:

• Identity duty: provide evidence of identity in one of two ways. Either supply a certified copy of a government-issued document that includes photograph and signature, or provide a certified copy of a document containing the applicant’s signature together with a Commonwealth statutory declaration by the applicant that they are the person named in the document (s 6(1)(a)-(b)). The listed examples of acceptable government-issued documents set a practical standard (passport, driver licence, working-with-children card) and impose a recency constraint on passports (issued within three years of expiry).

• Estate-authority duty: provide evidence that the applicant is, or likely to become, an executor or administrator of the deceased approved pharmacist’s estate (s 6(2)). The Determination does not prescribe granular proof formats for that evidence beyond the other documentary requirements that follow for testate and intestate situations.

• Death-certificate duty: provide a certified copy of the deceased approved pharmacist’s death certificate (s 6(3)).

• Estate-status duties: comply with the documentary content required for the estate status that obtains:

  • Testate: supply a certified copy of the will and a statutory declaration by the applicant stating that, to the best of their knowledge, the will is the last will and testament (s 6(4)).

  • Intestate with application for letters: supply a certified copy of the application for letters of administration and a statutory declaration stating that, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, there is no reason the application would be refused (s 6(5)).

  • Intestate with no application yet: supply a Commonwealth statutory declaration by the applicant stating they will apply for letters of administration "as soon as possible" and that, to the best of their knowledge, there is no reason the application would be refused (s 6(6)-(7)).

Rights articulated by the Determination are limited and procedural. The Determination does not itself create a substantive right to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits; it specifies what material will be taken to satisfy the documentary‑evidence requirement in paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act. In that sense, the right is procedural: an applicant who furnishes the prescribed documents will have, in documentary terms, complied with paragraph 91(2)(c) as framed by this instrument. The instrument thus defines a compliance pathway that, if satisfied, should enable an application to proceed through the federal administrative process. The Determination does not state that meeting these documentary requirements mandates a particular outcome on the underlying application; the Act contains the decision-making powers. What the Determination does is remove documentary uncertainty by setting an explicit checklist.

Other operational duties arise implicitly from references in the Determination:

• Certifier duty: documents must be certified by persons referenced in s 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023. The Determination relies on that external regulation for who may certify as a true copy (s 5 definition of "certified copy"). Applicants therefore have a duty to secure certifications from those classes of persons.

• Truthfulness duty: several items must be accompanied by Commonwealth statutory declarations that contain knowledge-based statements ("to the best of the applicant’s knowledge"). Those statutory declarations are legal instruments; the truthfulness of statements in them is a legal responsibility of the declarant, and falsehoods may engage separate legal sanctions administered under the statutory declaration regime (the Determination does not itself set criminal sanctions). The Determination frames the required content but does not itself prescribe penalties.

Decision-makers at the Commonwealth level have the duty to treat these documents as the kinds of documentary evidence required by paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act. The Determination narrows what will be accepted as documentary evidence; the duty of assessing officers will be to verify the presence and formal sufficiency (certified copy, statutory declaration executed) of the items listed.

The Determination itself contains no express penalty clauses or enforcement procedures. It is an evidentiary specification: it "determines the kind of documentary evidence required" for paragraph 91(2)(c) of the National Health Act 1953 (s 6). The Determination therefore operates as a compliance checklist rather than an enforcement code with sanctions.

Two enforcement implications arise from the Determination by operation of embedded references to other legal instruments and forms that carry their own legal consequences:

• Commonwealth statutory declarations: The Determination requires Commonwealth statutory declarations in multiple places (s 6(1)(b), s 6(4), s 6(5), s 6(6)). Statutory declarations are lawful instruments under Australian law. Whilst the Determination does not state the legal consequences of false statutory declarations, statutory declarations are typically governed by Commonwealth legislation and the making of a false statutory declaration may expose the declarant to legal penalties under that separate regime. The Determination relies on statutory declarations as a source of attestations such as "to the best of the applicant’s knowledge" and a commitment to apply for letters of administration "as soon as possible".

• Certified copies: The Determination requires certified copies certified by persons mentioned in section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 (s 5). The standing and formal requirement for certifiers means that certification outside those classes may be treated as not complying with the Determination, with practical enforcement being the rejection of documentary sufficiency. The Determination does not itself specify administrative consequences for defective certification beyond non-acceptance.

Administrative enforcement will therefore be exercised by the Commonwealth decision-maker responsible for processing paragraph 91(2)(c) applications. If the applicant fails to supply the documents listed, or supplies documents not certified as required, the practical consequence is that the applicant will not have the documentary evidence that the Determination prescribes. The Determination does not itself direct decision-makers to refuse or grant applications in particular circumstances; that remains a function of the National Health Act 1953 and any departmental procedures.

Because the Determination imports State and Territory documents (death certificates, wills, probate applications), enforcement of the underlying factual claims (for example, whether a will is the last will and testament, or whether an application for letters should be refused) will involve interaction with state probate courts and registries. The Determination’s reliance on statutory declarations about the absence of reasons an application would be refused suggests a reliance on declarant honesty rather than immediate judicial determination, leaving post‑hoc remedies in the case of falsehood or dispute to other processes.

Finally, the repeal of the 2015 Determination (Schedule 1) has an enforcement implication: applicants and administrators must use the 2025 Determination’s documentary checklist for applications lodged after commencement; relying on the old instrument’s requirements may no longer meet the Commonwealth’s documentary standard.

This Determination is a Commonwealth legislative instrument made under subsection 91(3) of the National Health Act 1953 (s 3). Its substantive purpose is to operationalise paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act by specifying acceptable documentary evidence. It therefore operates within the framework of the National Health Act, not as a freestanding grant of rights or obligations beyond evidentiary specification.

Key points of interaction with other legal instruments and jurisdictions, as set out within the Determination, include:

• Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023: The Determination defines "certified copy" by reference to persons mentioned in section 6 of those Regulations (s 5). This is a direct cross-reference that binds the federal evidentiary standard to the administrative rule on who may certify copies. Practically, the Determination imports the certification regime from the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 and requires applicants to comply with that regime.

• State and Territory births, deaths and marriages registries: The Determination requires a certified copy of the death certificate produced by the births, deaths and marriages registry in the relevant State or Territory (s 5 definition of "death certificate"; s 6(3)). That imports state‑produced documentary evidence and any state-specific formalities around obtaining certified copies into Commonwealth administrative processing.

• State probate and administration processes: The Determination refers to wills, applications for letters of administration, and the status of intestacy (s 6(4)-(7)). Those are matters determined and processed under state and territory wills and probate law. The Determination therefore makes federal decisions about PBS supply contingent on documentary outputs of state probate practice. It does not harmonise or override state probate law; instead it uses state documents as inputs to federal administrative decisions.

• Commonwealth statutory declarations: The Determination requires statutory declarations in several places. Statutory declarations are governed by federal statutory rules (and associated regulations). The Determination relies on the legal form and weight of those declarations, which are subject to their own statutory enforcement mechanisms outside the Determination. That creates a layered interplay: while the Determination requires certain statements in statutory declaration form, the legal consequences of falsehood are governed by statutory declaration law rather than this Determination.

• National Health Act 1953 substantive provisions: The Determination is an administrative instrument operating under the Act that modifies how paragraph 91(2)(c) is to be satisfied. The Act remains the primary source of powers and decision-making criteria; this Determination does not change the Act’s substantive provisions but clarifies documentary requirements.

• Repealed 2015 Determination: The instrument repeals the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits (Application to supply Pharmaceutical benefits following the death of an approved pharmacist - documentary evidence) Determination 2015 in full (Schedule 1). The repeal eliminates any conflicting procedural standards that relied on the 2015 Determination, concentrating documentary requirements in the 2025 Determination.

Practical interaction points to note: applicants must navigate federal documentary requirements while using documents produced under state law and certified under the federal statutory declaration regulatory regime. That means cross‑jurisdictional time lags, registry practices and certification practices under the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 will affect how quickly and in what form an applicant can produce the documents the Determination requires.

The instrument's text shows the 2025 Determination as the operative instrument. The only explicit historical action recorded within the document is the repeal in Schedule 1 of the entire 2015 Determination. Schedule 1, item 1 states that "The whole of the instrument" National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits (Application to supply Pharmaceutical benefits following the death of an approved pharmacist - documentary evidence) Determination 2015 is repealed.

Commencement is specified in s 2: the whole instrument commences "the day after this instrument is registered." The instrument repeats the commencement table multiple times in the text; however, the operative commencement statement is the one in s 2. There are no other schedules, amendments, or transitional provisions noted in the text aside from the complete repeal of the 2015 Determination.

No incremental amendments between 2015 and 2025 are recorded within the instrument. The 2025 Determination therefore operates as the consolidated documentary-evidence specification replacing the earlier 2015 instrument entirely.

The Determination cites subsection 91(3) of the National Health Act 1953 as the power under which it is made; it does not purport to amend the National Health Act itself. There are no entries in the instrument indicating later amendments or variations. All commencement information refers to "the day after this instrument is registered" for the whole instrument (s 2).

The instrument’s duplication of certain provisions (for example, multiple repeated blocks of Part 1,Preliminary, Part 2,Documentary Evidence, and the definitions) is present in the provided text. That duplication does not, on its face, change the substantive obligations, which are contained in the definitions (s 5) and documentary evidence provisions (s 6), together with Schedule 1’s repeal. There are no savings clauses or transitional arrangements in the text that preserve decisions made under the repealed 2015 Determination; practitioners should assume the 2015 Determination is of no further legal effect from the 2025 Determination’s commencement date.

The Determination itself contains no references to litigation, judicial decisions, or administrative appeals. The instrument names no cases and records no judicial history. There is no in‑text mention of proceedings under the National Health Act 1953 relating to applications to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits following the death of an approved pharmacist.

Because the Determination operates by setting documentary requirements for a statutory process under the National Health Act 1953, any litigation relating to these procedures would likely arise from administrative decisions made under the Act rather than from the Determination itself. The instrument does not set out or modify appeal rights, merits review procedures or judicial review pathways; these are governed by the Act and general administrative law.

For practitioners seeking litigation signals or precedent, the Determination provides no instances or naming of cases. Any legal challenge to the Determination’s content, or to a decision that applied it, would be located in the records of the relevant administrative decision and any judicial or merits review proceedings brought against that decision under applicable laws. Such proceedings and outcomes are not recorded in the instrument.

In short, the provided text contains no litigation history. Readers should therefore rely on the National Health Act 1953 and general administrative law for appeal and review routes, and monitor administrative decisions for any subsequent litigation that may interpret the Determination’s provisions or their interface with the Act.

This Determination is compact but contains several practical traps for applicants and administrators. Identify them precisely and address them when preparing an application:

1. Certified copy requirement is circumscribed: The Determination defines "certified copy" by reference to persons mentioned in section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 (s 5). Applicants who obtain certification from persons not listed in that regulation risk producing a document that does not meet the Determination’s requirement. The Determination does not list acceptable certifiers within its text; applicants must confirm whether the person certifying the copy is one of the classes referenced in the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023.

2. Two-tier identity test, differing burdens: The Determination offers an identity route that requires a government-issued document containing both photo and signature or, alternatively, a certified copy of a signature-bearing document plus a Commonwealth statutory declaration that the applicant is the person named (s 6(1)). Applicants relying on the second route must make a statutory declaration asserting identity; this adds legal exposure and may be slower to process in comparison to supplying a recent passport or current driver licence.

3. Passport recency language: The example of a passport in the government-issued document examples is qualified: "an Australian passport issued in the applicant’s name within 3 years of the expiry date" (s 5 note). That phrasing is potentially confusing. It appears to require that the passport’s issue date be within three years of the expiry date, which is an unusual metric. Practitioners should confirm how authorities operationalise that recency test because the text’s wording is open to multiple readings.

4. Subjective wording in statutory declarations: Multiple statutory declarations are required, and each contains subjective qualifiers such as "to the best of the applicant’s knowledge" (s 6(4)-(6)) and commitments to act "as soon as possible" (s 6(6)-(7)). These are declarant‑facing standards rather than objective documentary thresholds, which may generate administrative discretion when assessing truth and sufficiency. Decision-makers may seek further evidence if they consider the declaration insufficiently substantiated.

5. "Likely to become" executor or administrator: Section 6(2) requires "evidence that the applicant is, or is likely to become, an executor or administrator". The term "likely to become" is open‑ended. The Determination does not prescribe what types of evidence suffice to show "likelihood" (for example, letters of testamentary, legal advice, informal family agreements). That creates potential uncertainty and may invite follow-up inquiries by assessing officers.

6. Interaction with state probate timelines: The Determination imports wills, letters of administration and probate processes, which are governed by state law and can be time-consuming. Where an applicant has not yet applied for letters of administration, the instrument allows a statutory declaration promising to apply "as soon as possible" (s 6(6)-(7)), but in practice delays in probate registries may prolong the period before the Commonwealth is satisfied that estate authority has crystallised.

7. Repeal of the 2015 instrument: The Determination repeals the 2015 instrument in whole (Schedule 1). Practitioners who rely on the earlier Determination’s wording or processes should not assume continuity of documentary standards; check that previous practice remains consistent with the 2025 text.

8. Document formality vs substantive disputes: The Determination focuses on documentary form. It does not resolve substantive disputes about competing claims to estate administration or contested wills. Where multiple persons claim to be executor or administrator, the Determination’s documentary checklist might not resolve who has the lawful authority to act; that will remain a function of state probate processes.

9. Multiple repetitions in the text: The instrument as provided repeats core provisions and sections. While repetition does not change the substantive requirements, it may lead to inconsistent versions being published or relied upon. Practitioners should use the operative s 5 and s 6 text as authoritative.

10. No penalty clauses within the Determination: The instrument requires statutory declarations but does not set out the consequences for false statements. That leaves enforcement of falsehoods to the statutory declaration framework and to the departmental response to falsified documents, which may include rejection of the application or referral to prosecuting authorities.

Addressing these gotchas requires close attention to certification standards, the precise documentary wording required for each estate status, and timely engagement with state probate processes. Applicants should plan for time to obtain certified copies, to prepare statutory declarations, and to resolve any competing estate claims that could undermine administrative acceptance.

To comply with this Determination when applying to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits following the death of an approved pharmacist, follow these stepwise actions aligned with s 6 and s 5:

1. Confirm commencement and legal basis: Ensure the Determination has commenced (it commences the day after registration; s 2) and that paragraph 91(2)(c) of the National Health Act 1953 applies to your proposed application. This instrument prescribes documentary evidence only for that statutory context.

2. Prepare identity evidence (choose one route): Provide either:

   • Route A (preferred, lower follow-up risk): a certified copy of a government-issued document that includes both the applicant’s photograph and signature (s 6(1)(a)). Examples given include:

     • Australian passport issued in the applicant’s name within three years of the expiry date (s 5 note);
     • a current Australian driver’s licence, including learner licence or permit;
     • a current working-with-children or working-with-vulnerable-people card that contains the applicant’s signature on the issued card. Ensure the document is certified as a true copy by a person listed in s 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 (see s 5 definition of "certified copy").

   • Route B (if Route A unavailable): a certified copy of a document that includes the applicant’s signature together with a Commonwealth statutory declaration signed by the applicant stating they are the person named in the document (s 6(1)(b)). The statutory declaration must be a Commonwealth statutory declaration in the form required by the relevant rules and executed properly.

3. Obtain evidence of estate authority: Provide evidence that you are, or are likely to become, an executor or administrator of the deceased approved pharmacist’s estate (s 6(2)). While the Determination does not prescribe a strict list for this item, the documentary items required in the next steps for testate or intestate estates provide the practical means of proving that status.

4. Obtain certified copy of the death certificate: Produce a certified copy of the deceased approved pharmacist’s death certificate as issued by the births, deaths and marriages registry of the relevant State or Territory (s 6(3); s 5 definition of "death certificate"). Ensure the copy is certified by an authorised certifier under the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023.

5. Follow the estate-status pathway that applies:

   • If the deceased died testate (with a will): Provide a certified copy of the deceased approved pharmacist’s will, and a Commonwealth statutory declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that to the best of the applicant’s knowledge the will is the last will and testament (s 6(4)).

   • If the deceased died intestate and you have applied for letters of administration: Provide a certified copy of the application for letters of administration and a Commonwealth statutory declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that to the best of the applicant’s knowledge there is no reason the application for letters of administration would be refused (s 6(5)).

   • If the deceased died intestate and you have not applied for letters of administration: Provide a Commonwealth statutory declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that the applicant will, as soon as possible, apply for letters of administration and that, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, there is no reason why the application for letters of administration would be refused (s 6(6)-(7)).

6. Ensure certification and execution formalities: For every certified copy, confirm the certifier is a person listed in section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023 (s 5 definition of "certified copy"). For every statutory declaration, ensure it is executed in the form and manner required by Commonwealth law and witnessed by the appropriate person. Keep records of original documents and of the certifier’s details.

7. Anticipate potential follow-up queries: Because parts of the Determination rely on knowledge-based statutory declarations and on "likely to become" standards, be ready to supply supplementary documents if the assessing officer requests further proof,examples might include probate registry receipts, correspondence with the probate office, or legal advice letters showing steps taken to secure letters of administration.

8. Time the application with probate processes: If state probate timelines are likely to be protracted and you need to continue PBS supply urgently, use the statutory declaration route for intestacy (s 6(6)-(7)) to demonstrate intention to apply for letters of administration and absence of known barriers. Be aware that this is an interim mechanism; final estate authority will ultimately require the state-issued letters or probate documents.

9. Preserve documentary integrity: Maintain originals and certified copies in a retrievable file. Provide clear copies and ensure certification includes the certifier’s name, capacity and date of certification, consistent with the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2023. Because the Determination ties certification to those regulations, any missing certifier details may delay acceptance.

10. Replace any reliance on the 2015 Determination: Note that Schedule 1 repeals the 2015 Determination. Do not rely on the older instrument’s wording. Use the 2025 Determination’s exact documentary checklist for applications after commencement.

11. Seek clarification where wording is ambiguous: The Determination contains some ambiguous phrasing (for example the passport recency phrasing and the "likely to become" executor/administrator standard). If these points are material to your application, seek clarification from the administering Commonwealth agency before lodging, and consider obtaining probate or estate-law advice to support statements in statutory declarations.

12. Record truthfulness and factual basis for declarations: Because statutory declarations require honest statements "to the best of the applicant’s knowledge", ensure statements in declarations are factually supported and contemporaneous. Keep supporting documents that underpin any "to the best of my knowledge" assertions, such as written communications with probate registries.

Following these steps aligns the application package with the Determination’s documentary requirements (s 5 and s 6) and reduces the risk of administrative queries or rejection on documentary grounds. Where contested estate issues exist or where uncertainty about certification persists, obtain legal or regulatory advice to manage procedural risk.