SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Re Moore (deceased) [2025] QSC 213
PARTIES:
IN THE ESTATE OF JASMINE ROSE MOORE
(deceased)
ANDREW ARDASHIR ROUYANIAN (AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JASMINE ROSE MOORE, DECEASED)
(applicant)
v
ROBERT FEYRER(first respondent)
KLAUS MICRO BJELAN
(second respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BS No 7634 of 2021
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
29 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 August 2025
JUDGE:
Kelly J
ORDERS:
1. The application filed 16 April 2025 is dismissed.
2. The application filed 13 June 2025 is dismissed.
3. The costs of the first respondent payable by the second respondent pursuant to paragraph 2 of the order dated 9 May 2025 be fixed in the sum of $8,150 including GST.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE – OTHER MATTERS – where the deceased died intestate and without a spouse – where the deceased’s estate fell to be shared equally as between her two surviving sons, being the first and second respondents – where the deceased’s estate is said to comprise a property, cash and furniture – where the property is the subject of a proprietary estoppel claim by the first respondent arising from oral representations made to the first respondent by the deceased that if the first respondent transferred the land at the property to the deceased, the deceased would erect a house on the land and would by her will leave the property to the first respondent – where the administrator was granted letters of administration on intestacy – where the administrator applied under s 96 of the Trusts Act1973 (Qld) or s 6 of the Succession Act1981 (Qld) for judicial advice or a direction to the effect that he be authorised to compromise a claim made by the first respondent for a declaration of a constructive trust in relation to part of the assets of the deceased’s estate – where the power of the court to give judicial advice to a trustee is inherently discretionary – where obtaining judicial advice in the context of the contemplated prosecution or defence of legal proceedings resolves doubt about whether it is proper for the trustee to incur the costs and expenses of prosecuting or defending the litigation – where a relevant matter to the propriety of a proposed course of action by a trustee is whether the trustee has made all reasonable inquiries to establish the true facts – whether the administrator has made reasonable and proper inquiries to enable him to form any confident or informed view as to the likely prospects of defending the first respondent’s claims – whether the Court should provide the judicial advice or direction sought by the administrator
SUCCESSION – PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – ALTERATION AND REVOCATION OF GRANTS – GENERALLY – where the second respondent filed an application seeking the revocation of the grant of letters of administration to the administrator – where the court has an inherent jurisdiction to revoke…
Continue reading Re Moore (deceased)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Moore (deceased) [2025] QSC 213
- Case
- [2025] QSC 213
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the administrator had made reasonable and proper inquiries to form an informed view on the first respondent’s claim, whether the court should provide the sought judicial advice, and whether the circumstances warranted the revocation of the administrator's grant. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if there was a meritorious defence to the first respondent's claim, and if special or exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant leave to defend under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). Finally, the court had to decide whether to fix the costs ordered to be paid by the second respondent to the first respondent.
The court found that the administrator had not made reasonable and proper inquiries to form a confident view on the first respondent’s claim, and therefore, the court declined to provide the requested judicial advice. The court also determined that the circumstances did not warrant the revocation of the grant of letters of administration to the administrator, as the second respondent's application did not demonstrate that the due and proper administration of the estate would be jeopardised. Regarding the second respondent's application for leave to defend, the court found that no meritorious defence existed to the first respondent's claim, and thus, the application was dismissed. Finally, the court fixed the costs payable by the second respondent to the first respondent in the sum of $8,150 including GST.
The court's orders were to dismiss the applications for judicial advice and revocation of the grant of letters of administration, and to fix the costs payable by the second respondent to the first respondent in the sum of $8,150 including GST.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application filed 16 April 2025 is dismissed.
2. The application filed 13 June 2025 is dismissed.
3. The costs of the first respondent payable by the second respondent pursuant to paragraph 2 of the order dated 9 May 2025 be fixed in the sum of $8,150 including GST.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.