Delane v Caeger - [2025] WASC 369

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   DELANE -v- CAEGER [2025] WASC 369
CORAM:   MASTER RUSSELL
HEARD:   14 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   3 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1124 of 2024
BETWEEN:   LORRAINE VALERIE DELANE
Plaintiff
AND
JADEN GEORGE LOVELL CAEGER
First Defendant
KELSIE MARGARET HARFOUCHE
Second Defendant
KATRINA MAY CAEGER
Third Defendant
HEIDI LOUISE DELANE
Fourth Defendant
BRAD ANTHONY DELANE
Fifth Defendant
HANNAH CAEGER
Sixth Defendant
KELSIE MARGARET HARFOUCHE
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim
LORRAINE VALERIE DELANE
First Defendant by Counterclaim

Catchwords:

Probate - Administration of estates - No grant of probate or administration pending dispute over validity of a will - Application for the appointment of an administrator pending grant of probate or administration - Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 35 - Issue as to who should be appointed as interim administrator - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 35

Result:

Application granted

Appointment of interim administrator pending grant of probate or administration

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R J Nash
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	Ms K M Woods
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Ms K M Woods
First Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Mr R J Nash

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Kershaw Legal
First Defendant	:	In Person
Second Defendant	:	Mills Oakley
Third Defendant	:	In Person
Fourth Defendant	:	In Person
Fifth Defendant	:	In Person
Sixth Defendant	:	Not applicable
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Mills Oakley
First Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Kershaw Legal

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

Bellew v Bellew (1865) 34 LJPM & A 125
Farano v Arcaro [2021] WASC 461
Fazio v Naso [2016] WASC 385
Goodsall v Keen [2006] NSWSC 1143
Gooley v Gooley [2020] NSWSC 798
In Re Bevan v Houldsworth [1948] 1 All ER 271
The Public Trustee (WA) v Brumar Nominees Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 337
The Public Trustee in and for the State of Western Australia v Seow & Anor [2003] WASC 62
Vallelonga v Sorgiovanni [2017] WASC 323

MASTER RUSSELL:

Overview

This proceeding was commenced on 6 February 2024 seeking orders that the will of the late Douglas Alan Caeger executed on 2 June 2022 (Will) has force and effect in solemn form as the deceased's will, and that a grant of probate be issued to the plaintiff, Lorraine Valerie Delane, as the executor named in the Will.
With no disrespect to the deceased or the parties, once identified, I will refer to them in these reasons by their first names.
Lorraine deposes that she and Douglas had been in a relationship together since about 1991 until he died on 25 May 2023, and that she lived with him as his de facto partner since 1993. She is referred to as Douglas' de facto partner in the Will.
The first, second, third and sixth defendants, Jaden George Lovell Caeger, Kelsie Margaret…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Delane v Caeger

Details

AGLC: Delane v Caeger [2025] WASC 369
Case: [2025] WASC 369
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Delane v Caeger involved a dispute over the validity of a will, leading to an application for the appointment of an interim administrator pending the grant of probate or administration. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The deceased, who left a will, had left behind a contentious estate, with various family members and other interested parties seeking to challenge the will's validity. The applicants, who were potential beneficiaries, sought the appointment of an interim administrator to manage the estate until the will's validity could be determined.

The court had to decide whether an interim administrator should be appointed under the provisions of the Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 35, and if so, who should be appointed. The applicants argued that, given the complexity and size of the estate, it was necessary to have an administrator to prevent dissipation of assets and to ensure that the estate was properly managed. The respondents, who included other potential beneficiaries, opposed the application on the basis that the applicants were not suitable to act as interim administrators.

In delivering its decision, the court examined the specific circumstances of the estate and the arguments of both parties. It concluded that, given the size and complexity of the estate, it was in the best interests of all parties for an interim administrator to be appointed. The court found that the applicants, despite being potential beneficiaries, were suitable to act as interim administrators and ordered their appointment. The court held that the applicants had demonstrated a willingness to act in the best interests of all parties and had the necessary skills and experience to manage the estate effectively.

The court's final orders included the appointment of the applicants as interim administrators of the estate, pending the resolution of the dispute over the validity of the will. The administrators were given broad powers to manage the estate, including the power to apply for and accept probate or administration. The court also ordered that the estate be kept intact and that no dissipation of assets occur pending the resolution of the dispute.

Orders