Archibald v Field

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ARCHIBALD -v- FIELD [2020] WASC 369
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   16 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   14 OCTOBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   14 OCTOBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1112 of 2020
BETWEEN:   VIVIENNE JANET ARCHIBALD
Plaintiff

AND

MALCOLM FIELD
First Defendant

VALERIE GWENNYTH VERA CROKER
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Probate - Application by three sisters to be joint administrators of the estate with plaintiff - Application dismissed - Plaintiff appointed sole administrator of estate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Wills Act 1970 (WA)

Result:

Application by proposed intervenors be dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	R Cosentino
First Defendant	:	B Long
Second Defendant	:	E Rennie
Proposed Intervenors	:	J J Hockley
Proposed Intervenors	:	J J Hockley
Proposed Intervenors	:	J J Hockley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Vibe Legal Pty Ltd
First Defendant	:	Celtic Legal Pty Ltd
Second Defendant	:	Tolson & Co
Proposed Intervenors	:	Integra Legal
Proposed Intervenors	:	Integra Legal
Proposed Intervenors	:	Integra Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

MASTER SANDERSON:

By writ of summons filed 28 January 2020, the plaintiff applied for a grant of letters of administration of the will of her late brother, Benjamin John Croker (the deceased) who died on or about 12 November 2018. The relevant facts are as follows.
In his will the deceased treated his four sisters equally, leaving each two shares in the family company, Brival Pty Ltd. One share in the company was left to each of his mother and father. The deceased sister, Lindy Croker, was appointed guardian of the deceased's pets and the will directed that the sum of $10,000 be paid to Lindy for their ongoing care. The deceased parents were the residuary beneficiaries of his estate.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Anne Meredith Moor‑Crouch sworn 17 July 2020.
Brival Pty Ltd was a family business. It encountered financial difficulties between the date of the will and the date of his death. Before 11 November 2018 the deceased's father, Brian John Croker, went bankrupt. His trustee in bankruptcy is the first defendant. The second defendant is the deceased's mother.
On 11 November 2018, just before his death, the deceased made an informal amendment by codicil to his will. The codicil was not witnessed in accordance with s 8 of the Wills Act 1970 (WA). Under this codicil his father was removed as a joint beneficiary of the residuary estate, leaving his mother as the sole residuary beneficiary. The first and second defendants have filed a notice of intention to abide by the decision of the court.
The deceased's sisters, Ann Meredith Moor‑Crouch, Lindy Judith Croker and Nerida Louise Croker have not consented to the plaintiff obtaining a grant of letters of administration. They say they have not, until recently, been informed as to what was occurring regarding their brother's estate. By summons filed 20 July 2020, the deceased's three sisters applied to be joined as third defendants to the action. They do not actually oppose letters of administration being granted with respect to the will and the codicil. What they say, is that all four of the deceased's sisters should be joint administrators.
While I would accept it is open to the court to appoint all four of the deceased's sisters as administrators, it seems to me to be a pointless exercise. There is little or nothing in the estate. There appears to be some concern that the home of the deceased's parents may be at some risk in the administration. There is no evidence to support that contention. It is unfortunate that a level of distrust seems to have crept into what was a close and loving family. While I appreciate the proposed interveners are well motivated, there seems to be no logical reason why they should be made joint administrators of this estate.
The best outcome for all concerned is to make orders as sought in the writ of summons. The matter has been left for too long and any further complication of, and delay in, the administration of the estate is unwarranted.
On publication of these reasons, I will give the parties the opportunity to confer about the form of the orders. Subject to hearing from the parties, I would order that the costs of the plaintiff and of the proposed interveners be taxed and paid out of the assets of the estate.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
IW
Associate to Master Sanderson
14 OCTOBER 2020

In Archibald v Field, three sisters sought to be appointed joint administrators of the estate of their deceased brother, with the plaintiff also applying to be a joint administrator. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff and the three sisters should be appointed as joint administrators of the estate, or whether the plaintiff should be appointed as the sole administrator. The dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the application was brought.

The legal issues before the court centred on the powers of the court to appoint joint administrators, and the circumstances in which such an appointment would be appropriate. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries, and the personal circumstances of the applicants. The court also had to assess the applicants' ability to act effectively in the role of administrator.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the statutory provisions did not preclude the appointment of joint administrators, but that such an appointment was not mandatory. The court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated a clear intention to act as the sole administrator, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of joint administrators. The court also found that the plaintiff was well-suited to the role, having experience in managing estates and being the only applicant with a clear intention to act as administrator. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application by the three sisters to be joint administrators and appointed the plaintiff as the sole administrator of the estate.

The court's decision was based on its assessment of the statutory provisions, the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries, and the personal circumstances of the applicants. The court found that the plaintiff's experience and intention to act as sole administrator were compelling factors in favour of her appointment, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of joint administrators. The final orders of the court were that the application by the three sisters be dismissed, and that the plaintiff be appointed as the sole administrator of the estate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established