Fairnington v Stutchbury

[2024] QSC 328

QUEENSLAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

© The State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General). Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Copyright is not infringed by the reproduction of this transcript for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or a report thereof, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). A copy of this transcript may also be provided to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining professional advice, pursuant to section 43(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). For all other uses, you must not copy, modify or distribute this material without the written authority of the Director, Recording and Transcription Services, Queensland Courts.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MUIR J

No 5044 of 2023

LUKE JOHN FAIRNINGTON  Applicant

and

MICHAEL JOHN STUTCHBURY  Respondent

BRISBANE

3.20 PM, FRIDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2024

DAY 1

JUDGMENT

Any rulings in this transcript may be extracted and revised by the presiding Judge.

WARNING:  The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence.  This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories.  You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HER HONOUR: This is the matter of Fairnington and Stutchbury. It was filed as an on the papers application. It is an application to the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion under s 6 of the Succession Act.  Orders sought are consistent with the settlement, terms of settlement reached by the parties, a copy of which has been provided on the court file that has been sealed, but was opened by me as a Supreme Court Judge to read.  The orders sought emerge from the fact as follows.

The respondent is the surviving brother of the deceased, and the currently appointed administrator of the estate by way of letters of administration on intestacy granted by the Supreme Court on 28 November 2022.  Following the grant of letters of administration, a will made by the deceased was discovered.  The original will is in evidence.  The beneficiary, being the only person with any priority to obtain a grant of letters of administration with the will, consents to the administrator obtaining the grant and completing the administration process.  A grant of letters of administration is required to finalise the administration of the estate in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties.

There are sufficient grounds, in my view, for the current grant and a declaration that the deceased’s will is to be acknowledged by the court, and that there is the existence of the biological son, namely the applicant.  Accordingly, and consistent with the terms of settlement reached by the parties, the court acknowledges the submissions of the deceased’s biological son and of the will. In terms of the orders, I am prepared to make orders 1, 2, and 3 in the draft that is provided to me, and I will do so. 

The orders sought on the papers do not include any declaration about the existence of the deceased’s will or the existence of the deceased’s biological son, nor do I consider it would have been appropriate without oral submissions to make such a declaration, but that is unnecessary given that it is only an acknowledgment that is sought and not orders.  I will make an order in terms of the draft.

______________________