Murakami v Murakami; Murakami v Wiryadi - [2005] NSWSC 953

CITATION:
Murakami v Murakami; Murakami Re the Estate of Murakami; Murakami v Wiryadi [2005] NSWSC 953

HEARING DATE(S): 13 and 14 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

26 September 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division
Probate List

JUDGMENT OF:
Windeyer J at 1

DECISION:
Special grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem revoked

CATCHWORDS:
PROBATE - letters of administration - application to revoke ex parte grant of letters of administration ad litem - incorrect statements included in affidavit in support of ex parte application - full disclosure not made - whether misstatements material to decision to make the grant.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 s40

CASES CITED:
Garrard t/as Arthur Anderson & Co v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662
Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679

PARTIES:
In 109555 of 2005
Ryuji Murakami (Plaintiff)
Takako Murakami (Defendant
In 107306 of 2005
Takako Murakami (Plaintiff)
Re the Estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso
In 2906/05
Takako Murakami (Plaintiff)
Louise Maria Wiryadi (First Defendant)
Ryuji Murakami (Second Defendant)
Ryuzo Murakami (Third Defendant)
Sjamsjur Bahari (Fourth Defendant)
Janti Lestare Wiryadi (Fifth Defendant)
Glenn Martin Wiryadi (Sixth Defendant)
Evelyn Dionne Wiryadi (Seventh Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 109555 of 2005; 107306 of 2005; 2906 of 2005

COUNSEL:
Ms J Needham SC (Plaintiff in 109555 of 2005 and First to Fourth Defendants in 2906/05)
Mr P Hallen SC with him Mr M Meek (Defendant in 109555 of 2005 and Plaintiff in 2906 of 2005)
No appearance (Fifth to Seventh Defendants in 2906 of 2005)

SOLICITORS:
Heazlewoods Busby International Lawyers (Plaintiff in 109555 of 2005 and First to Fourth Defendants in 2906/05)
Uther Webster & Evans (Defendant in 109555 of 2005 and Plaintiff in 2906 of 2005)
No appearance (Fifth to Seventh Defendants in 2906 of 2005)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 17 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST

WINDEYER J

MONDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2005

109555/05 RYUJI MURAKAMI V TAKAKO MURAKAMI
107306/05 TAKAKO MURAKAMI RE THE ESTATE OF TAKASHI MURAKAMI SUROSO
2906/05 TAKAKO MURAKAMI V LOUISE MARIA WIRYADI

JUDGMENT

1 The question for decision is whether an ex parte order appointing Takako Murakami (Takako) administrator ad litem of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso (the deceased) should be revoked. The deceased died in Indonesia on 1 June 1996. It is necessary to explain the history of the litigation so far.

2 Takako and her brother Takao are children of the deceased born out of wedlock but recognized for succession purposes as legitimate children entitled to share in his estate. Ryuji Murakami and Ryuzo Murakami are children of the deceased of his marriage to Louise Maria Wiryadi which was dissolved in 1995. In proceedings in the Probate List No. 107306 of 2005 commenced by summons filed on 12 May 2005 Takako has sought (1) an order that probate of a will of the deceased dated 16 July 1993 be granted to her; (2) an order for special letters of administration ad litem for the purpose of bringing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murakami v Murakami; Murakami v Wiryadi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 953
Decision Date: 26 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Murakami and Wiryadi, who were engaged in a dispute concerning the revocation of an ex parte grant of letters of administration ad litem. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Murakami, sought to revoke a grant of letters of administration ad litem that had been made to Wiryadi. The dispute centred on the accuracy of statements made in the affidavit in support of the ex parte application and whether these statements were material to the decision to grant the letters of administration ad litem.

The court had to determine whether the incorrect statements made in the affidavit were significant enough to warrant the revocation of the letters of administration ad litem. This involved assessing the full disclosure made in the affidavit and whether the misstatements had any impact on the decision-making process. The court needed to consider the legal principles surrounding the revocation of letters of administration ad litem and the importance of full disclosure in such applications.

The court found that the misstatements in the affidavit were indeed material and had the potential to influence the decision to grant the letters of administration ad litem. The applicant had not made full disclosure, which was a critical aspect of the application process. Given the significance of these errors, the court concluded that the misstatements warranted the revocation of the letters of administration ad litem. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accuracy and transparency in legal applications, particularly in matters of probate and administration.

The final orders of the court included the revocation of the ex parte grant of letters of administration ad litem made to Wiryadi. The court also ordered that the applicant, Murakami, was to bear the costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the necessity for meticulous attention to detail and full disclosure in applications for probate and administration, as well as the consequences of failing to meet these standards.

Orders