Re Morgan (deceased)
[2025] QSC 258
•13 October 2025
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Re Morgan (deceased) [2025] QSC 258
PARTIES:
IN THE WILL OF LESLIE ALFRED MORGAN
(deceased)
KERINA JAYNE STRAUSS
(applicant)
FILE NO:
SE 06057 of 2025
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
Application on the papers
JUDGE:
Davis J
ORDER:
1. Pursuant to r 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), this application is to proceed without an oral hearing.
2. Subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, letters of administration with the will for the estate of Leslie Alfred Morgan (deceased) be granted to the applicant Kerina Jayne Strauss as administrator.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – GRANTS OF PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – LIMITED SPECIAL AND CONDITIONAL GRANTS OF PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – where the deceased made a will – where by the will she appointed Queensland Trustees Limited now known as Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as executor – where the executor renounced administration of the estate – where the sole beneficiary of the estate is the deceased’s widow – where the beneficiary is elderly and does not wish to conduct the administration – where the deceased had two children being the applicant and her brother – where the applicant’s brother consents to the applicant being appointed administrator – where the estate is modest – whether the applicant ought to be granted letters of administration.
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 489, r 494, r 495, r 603
COUNSEL:
The applicant made written submissions on her own behalf
SOLICITORS:
The applicant acted for herself
This is an application by Kerina Jayne Strauss[1] for letters of administration with the will of her deceased father Leslie Alfred Morgan.
[1]I will refer to each of the persons mentioned by their first given name for convenience and without meaning any disrespect.
Background
Leslie Alfred Morgan was married to Doreen Jane Morse Morgan.
Leslie and Doreen had two children being Kerina and Bradley Dene Morgan.
Leslie died on 22 February 2025, leaving a will dated 13 January 1971.
By his will, Leslie:
(a)appointed Queensland Trustees Limited as executors and trustees;
(b)left his entire estate to Doreen on condition that she survived him for one calendar month; and
(c)made provision in the event that Doreen did not survive him.
Queensland Trustees Limited changed its name to Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited on 23 June 1989.
On 15 January 2013, pursuant to s 601WBG of the Corporations Act 2001, Perpetual Trustee Company Limited became the successor in law to Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited.
On 23 March 2025, Doreen renounced any right to administer Leslie’s estate. On the same day, Bradley also renounced any right of administration of Leslie’s estate.
Leslie owned a house which he held with Doreen as joint tenants. Upon Leslie’s death, his interest passed to Doreen by survivorship and did not fall to the estate.
Apart from personal property, the only other asset is a credit balance in an account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia of a little over $100,000.00.
The present application has been advertised pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.
Kerina seeks to have the application determined without oral hearing.
The issues
There are two questions:
(a)should the application be determined without oral hearing?; and
(b)should letters of administration with the will be given to Kerina?
Should the application be determined without oral hearing?
Rule 489 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides for decisions without an oral hearing of an application:
“489 Proposal for decision without oral hearing
(1)A party making an application, including an application in a proceeding, may propose in the application that it be decided without an oral hearing.
(2)If the applicant proposes the application be decided without an oral hearing, the court must decide the application without an oral hearing unless—
(a) under rule 491, the court considers it inappropriate to do so; or
(b) under rule 494, the respondent requires an oral hearing; or
(c) under rule 495, the applicant abandons the request for a decision without an oral hearing; or
(d) the Chief Justice or Chief Judge suspends the operation of this rule by direction.”
The structure of r 489 is that:
(a)jurisdiction to proceed without an oral hearing is granted;
(b)that jurisdiction is enlivened by a proposal by an applicant; and
(c)the proposal must be accepted by the Court in the absence of any of the circumstances prescribed in rr 489(2)(a)-(d).
Here:
(a)the only persons interested in the application are Doreen and Bradley;
(b)they have both consented to the appointment of Kerina and there is no suggestion that either of them wish to be heard;[2]
(c)Kerina has not abandoned the request for a decision without an oral hearing; and[3]
(d)the Chief Justice has not suspended the operation of r 489 by direction.[4]
[2]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 494 and 489(2)(b).
[3]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 495 and 489(2)(c).
[4]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 489(2)(d).
Consequently, the only question is whether it is appropriate to proceed without oral hearing.[5]
[5]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 489(2)(a).
The estate is a modest one.
Affidavits have been filed which demonstrate that the three remaining members of Leslie’s nuclear family (Doreen, Bradley and Kerina) all consent to Kerina administering the estate.
The factual substratum of the application is not contentious, and the legal principles are well settled.
It is appropriate to deal with the application without oral hearing.
Should there be a grant of letters of administration to the applicant?
Rule 603 of the UCPR prescribes the priority for letters of administration with the will. Rule 603 provides:
“(1) The descending order of priority of persons to whom the court may
grant letters of administration with the will is as follows—(a) a trustee of the residuary estate;
(b) a life tenant of any part of the residuary estate;
(c) a remainderman of any part of the residuary estate;
(d) another residuary beneficiary;
(e) a person otherwise entitled to all or part of the residuary estate, by full or partial intestacy;
(f) a specific or pecuniary legatee;
(g) a creditor or person who has acquired the entire beneficial interest under the will;
(h) anyone else the court may appoint.
(2) The court may grant letters of administration with the will to any person, in priority to any person mentioned in subrule (1).
(3) If 2 or more persons have the same priority, the order of priority must be decided according to which of them has the greater interest in the estate.
(4) Each applicant must establish the person’s priority by providing evidence that each person higher in the order of priority is not entitled to priority because of death, incapacity or renunciation.
(5) A document providing evidence for subrule (4)must be an exhibit to the affidavit in support of the application.
(6) The applicant need not establish priority for a person equal to or lower than the applicant in the order of priority.”
The trustee of the residuary estate[6] (Perpetual Trustee Company Limited), has renounced administration.
[6]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 603(1)(a).
There is no life tenant or remainderman of any part of the residuary estate.[7]
[7]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 603(1)(b) and 603(1)(c).
Doreen is the sole beneficiary,[8] and she has renounced administration.
[8]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 603(1)(d), 603(1)(e), and 603(1)(f).
There is no creditor relevant to r 603(1)(g).
Leslie and Doreen had two children, who are the obvious choices to administer the estate.
One of those, Bradley, has renounced administration, leaving Kerina as the person who should be granted administration of the estate.
There is nothing apparent which would disentitle Kerina to a grant of administration. The quality of the material and submissions filed in support of the application, where she has acted for herself, demonstrate her capacity to act as executor and she should be appointed.
Costs
There are no legal costs as Kerina represented herself on the application.
Any out-of-pocket expenses such as filing fees etcetera, if paid by Kerina, ought to be reimbursed to her from the estate. No order is sought but none is necessary.
Orders
The following orders are made:
1.Pursuant to r 489(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 1999, this application is to proceed without an oral hearing.
2.Subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, letters of administration with the will for the estate of Leslie Alfred Morgan (deceased) be granted to the applicant Kerina Jayne Strauss as administrator.
0
0
1