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

1. 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.

2. With no disrespect to the deceased or the parties, once identified, I will refer to them in these reasons by their first names.

3. 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.

4. The first, second, third and sixth defendants, Jaden George Lovell Caeger, Kelsie Margaret Harfouche, Katrina Maye Caeger and Hannah Caeger (also referred to as Hannah Elizabeth McDougall) are Douglas' adult children.

5. The fourth and fifth defendants, Heidi Louise Delane and Brad Anthony Delane are Lorraine's adult children.

6. Jaden, Katrina, Heidi and Brad have each filed a notice of intention to abide stating they do not intend to take part in the proceedings and will accept any order made by the court, other than in some cases in relation to costs. Hannah has been served with the proceedings but has not entered an appearance.

7. The only active parties to the proceeding are Lorraine and Kelsie.

8. Kelsie has filed a defence and counterclaim, disputing the validity of the Will, as set out in the defence. By way of counterclaim, Kelsie seeks a declaration that the Will is void and of no effect. Alternatively, she seeks that the court pronounce against the force and validity of the Will and that, upon application by her, a grant of letters of administration of Douglas' intestate estate be issued to her.

9. Pending the dispute the subject of these proceedings, Douglas' estate (Estate) has not been administered and there is some uncertainty as to the assets of the Estate.

10. By chamber summons filed on 21 March 2025 (Application), Kelsie seeks orders for the appointment of an interim administrator pending final determination of this proceeding, pursuant to s 35 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA) (Act).

11. Lorraine initially opposed the Application. However, following productive conferral, by the time of the hearing of the Application, the issues between the parties had narrowed significantly.  The only real issue between them and the question to be determined is who should be appointed as interim administrator of the Estate.  Kelsie and Lorraine are largely agreed as to what powers the appointee should have in relation to the interim administration of the Estate.

12. Kelsie seeks an order that chartered accountant and insolvency practitioner, Matthew Vines, a partner of Hall Chadwick Corporate Insolvency and Recovery Services, be appointed as interim administrator of the Estate. Lorraine seeks an order that solicitor, Ian Torrington Blatchford, be appointed as interim administrator of the Estate.

13. Each have made submissions as to the suitability of the proposed interim administrators and why they each say that their respective proposed administrator should be the preferred appointee.

14. For the following reasons, having considered the submissions made, I accept that both of the proposed interim administrators are suitably qualified to administer the Estate.  However, having balanced the competing submissions, and having regard to the nature and extent of the Estate, I have reached the view that Mr Blatchford should be appointed as interim administrator of the Estate.

The materials relied upon

1. In support of the Application, Kelsie relies on:

   (a)her affidavit sworn and filed on 21 March 2025 (Harfouch Affidavit);

   (b)an affidavit affirmed by Matthew Vines on 20 March 2025, filed on 21 March 2025; and

   (c)an outline of submissions filed on 10 April 2025.

2. Lorraine relies on:

   (a)her affidavit sworn on 5 June 2025, filed on 29 July 2025 (Delane Affidavit);

   (b)an affidavit of Michelle Ann Kershaw sworn and filed on 31 July 2025;

   (c)an outline of submissions filed on 29 July 2025; and

   (d)consent of Ian Torrington Blatchford signed on 13 August 2025.[1]

   [1] Tendered at the hearing of the Application on 14 August 2025 and marked as Exhibit A.

Applicable principles

1. The court has power to appoint an administrator and/or a receiver pending any suit concerned with the validity of a will under s 35 of the Act, which provides:

   35Court may appoint manager and receiver pending litigation

   The Court may, pending any proceedings touching the validity of any will, or for obtaining, recalling, or revoking any probate or administration, appoint an administrator of the personal estate and a receiver of the real estate of any deceased person, at such remuneration and with such full or limited powers as the Court may think fit.

2. The principles that apply to the appointment of an interim administrator pending suit are well established. They have been referred to in the parties' respective outlines of submissions and it is not necessary that I set them out in detail.

3. Such an appointment is not confined to cases of necessity.[2] However, before the Court exercises its discretion to appoint an interim administrator, it should be satisfied that there is sufficient reason to do so,[3] and whether such is in the interests of those connected with the estate.[4]

   [2] The Public Trustee in and for the State of Western Australia v Seow & Anor [2003] WASC 62 [23] (EM Heenan J, citing Bellew v Bellew (1865) 34 LJPM & A 125; In Re Bevan v Houldsworth [1948] 1 All ER 271; See also The Public Trustee (WA) v Brumar Nominees Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 337 [82] (Pritchard J); Gooley v Gooley [2020] NSWSC 798 [112] (Williams J); Farano v Arcaro [2021] WASC 461 [38] (Strk J).

   [3] Farano v Arcaro [39] (Strk J), referring to Vallelonga v Sorgiovanni [2017] WASC 323 [5] (Sanderson M) citing Goodsall v Keen [2006] NSWSC 1143 (Campbell J).

   [4] Vallelonga v Sorgiovanni [9].

Relevant factual background

1. As noted, Lorraine commenced these proceedings for proof of the Will in solemn form in February 2024.  The proceedings were commenced pursuant to an order made by the consent of Lorraine and Kelsie on 19 January 2024 in probate action PRO 5009 of 2023.  There have been some delays in progressing these proceedings and various amendments to the pleadings.  More than two years have now elapsed since Douglas died on 25 May 2023.

2. There is some dispute and uncertainty as to the assets, liabilities and value of the Estate.  Assets held by Douglas in his own name and forming part of the Estate include various shares and:

   (a)a property at Mayhill Quays, Geraldton where he and Lorraine lived together up until the time of Douglas' death (Geraldton Property), and Lorraine continues to reside;[5]

   (b)funds held in a Bendigo Bank savings account (Bendigo Account) recorded in the statement of assets and liabilities as $372,000, although it is unclear whether this includes funds held on behalf of the Caeger Family Trust, of which Douglas was the principal.[6]

   [5] Harfouche Affidavit [29], 'KMH‑06'.

   [6] Harfouche Affidavit [29], 'KMH‑06'.

3. The certificate of title for the Geraldton Property records a mortgage to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank registered on 28 February 2020, but there is no information as to any outstanding liability under the mortgage.[7]

   [7] Harfouche Affidavit [39] ‑ [40], 'KMH‑13'.

4. Lorraine deposes in the Delane Affidavit that she believes the only assets are the Geraldton Property and the money in the Bendigo Account, which is in issue.[8] Lorraine's counsel submitted that the value of the Estate is relatively modest, assuming a value in the region of $2 million. However, further investigations are required.

   [8] Delane Affidavit [20].

5. Douglas was a director and shareholder of Galaway Investments Pty Ltd (Galaway).[9]  Galaway is the trustee of the Caeger Family Trust, of which Douglas was principal.[10]  Since Douglas' death Galaway has been without a director.[11]  There are also a number of other entities associated with Douglas requiring further investigation.

   [9] Harfouche Affidavit [54], 'KMH‑17'; Delane Affidavit [16].

   [10] Harfouche Affidavit [61(d)].

   [11] Harfouche Affidavit [55].

6. A letter from Lorraine's solicitors to Kelsie's solicitors dated 15 December 2024 refers to communications with Galaway's accountant, Mr Davies of Ascend Business Results, Geraldton.[12]  It appears from that correspondence that Mr Davies had not received information from Douglas to prepare any financial statements for him or entities he was associated with after 2021.  As such, Mr Davies has been unable to prepare further accounts until he has been provided with bank statements and other information for the previous three years.

   [12] Harfouche Affidavit [24] ‑ [25], 'KMH‑05'.

The parties' respective positions

1. As noted, the parties are now agreed that an interim administrator should be appointed, and as to the powers of the interim administrator and related orders.  The real issue between the parties, and to be determined, is whether Mr Vines should be appointed as interim administrator or Mr Blatchford.

2. Each counsel took me to specific entries in the financial statements attached to Kelsie's affidavit in relation to some of the matters said to require investigation. It is not necessary that I refer to those in any detail. It is sufficient to note that there are matters requiring investigation and, as is accepted by the parties, it is in the interests of the Estate that an interim administrator be appointed.

3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of Kelsie and Lorraine.  I do not repeat them. What follows is a summary of the parties' respective positions.

Summary of second defendant's position

1. Kelsie's counsel referred to the financial statements attached to the Harfouche Affidavit and made submissions to the effect that Mr Vines, as an experienced accountant, would be better placed to trace through the financial records of the various entities and to ascertain the extent of the Estate's assets and liabilities.  In saying that, counsel accepted that Mr Blatchford is known to the Court, has experience in, and is regularly appointed in roles relating to, the administration of estates.

2. It was acknowledged on behalf of Kelsie that Mr Vines' rate as a partner of Hall Chadwick of $850 an hour plus GST is significantly higher than Mr Blatchford's hourly rate of $400 per hour plus GST.  However, it was submitted that Mr Vines may not undertake all of the work required in relation to the administration of the Estate, which could be delegated to others within Hall Chadwick at their applicable hourly rates. 

Summary of plaintiff's position

1. It was submitted on behalf of Lorraine that, whilst there are uncertainties in relation to the assets of the Estate, a family trust and some apparent complexity concerning entities associated with the deceased, those are matters regularly dealt with in the administration of estates.

2. The position advanced on behalf of Lorraine is that such matters are within Mr Blatchford's experience and do not necessitate the appointment of an accountant as interim administrator of the Estate.  To the extent that any accounting expertise is required, such can be provided by Mr Davies, the deceased's long‑standing accountant who is familiar with the relevant entities and has prepared the previous financial statements.

3. It was submitted that the value of the estate and the issues requiring investigation and administration are not such as to warrant the significantly higher fees of Mr Vines and his firm.

Determination

1. In the circumstances, as outlined, I am satisfied it is appropriate that an interim administrator be appointed.  As Master Sanderson observed in Fazio v Naso,[13] a deceased estate cannot 'be left in limbo'.  It is essential that decisions are made, rates, taxes and other liabilities are managed and, where applicable, paid.  There are a number of uncertainties regarding the assets of the Estate in this case and a number of entities connected to Douglas that require further investigation, as referred to.  The Estate should not be left unadministered and such matters 'left to drift' while the dispute concerning the Will is determined or resolved.

   [13] Fazio v Naso [2016] WASC 385 [10].

2. Having carefully considered the competing submissions, I am satisfied that both of the proposed interim administrators are suitably qualified to act as interim administrator of the Estate.  However, I have determined that Mr Blatchford should be appointed.

3. Mr Blatchford is experienced in all matters relating to the administration of deceased estates and has been appointed by this Court on many occasions to perform the same or similar functions.  His professional charges of $400 plus GST per hour are reasonable, and there is nothing to suggest that he will do anything other than what is necessary to preserve the interests of the Estate.

4. It is not necessary, in my view, that a chartered accountant or someone with specific expertise in company or trust accounting or insolvency undertake the role of interim administrator.  There is nothing to indicate that such expertise is required.

5. To the extent that Mr Blatchford requires accounting advice or services, he may obtain such from the accounting firm that has previously provided such services to Douglas and the various entities previously managed or controlled by him.  Although not determinative, it is noted that in the Will the subject of the proceedings, Douglas expressed his wish that if his executors require assistance or advice with the financial aspects of the administration of his Estate, they employ his accountant, as named in the Will to provide such.[14]

   [14] Will cl 9; Harfouche Affidavit 'KMH-02', page 27.

6. The various financial statements in evidence for the purpose of this Application were prepared by that accountant and the address of that accounting firm (Ascend Business Results) is the registered office address of each of the companies.

Conclusion and orders

1. For these reasons, I will make an order pursuant to s 35 of the Act appointing Ian Torrington Blatchford as administrator pendente lite of the Estate (Interim Administrator) pending the final disposition of this proceeding.

2. I will hear from the parties as to the orders to be made in relation to the powers of the Interim Administrator.  I am satisfied that orders should be made substantially in terms of the minute of proposed orders filed on behalf of Lorraine on 14 August 2025 (as varied in the terms agreed by the parties during the hearing of the Application), subject to clarifying some aspects of those proposed orders.

3. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order in the terms proposed that the parties' costs of the Application be taxed and paid out of the Estate, to be paid by the Interim Administrator as soon as practicable and funds allow after taxation.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

SC

Associate to Master Russell

3 SEPTEMBER 2025