Re Negrean; Borbil v Borbil - [2025] QSC 66

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Negrean; Borbil v Borbil [2025] QSC 66

PARTIES:
TIMOTEI BORBIL AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RAVEICA NEGREAN, DECEASED

(Applicant / Respondent)

v

COSMIN FLORIN BORBIL

(First respondent)

CRINA FLORINA BOCOS

(Second respondent)

JOHN NEGREAN

(Third respondent / Applicant)

ELISEI SAMUEL BORBIL

(Fourth respondent)

FILENO/S:
BS4542 of 2023

BS327 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Originating Applications

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 3 April 2025

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 26 March 2025

JUDGE: Hindman J

ORDER: The Court will hear from the parties as to the form of order.

CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF TESTMENTARY DISPOSITIONS – CONSTRUCTION

GENERALLY – where the executor of a will seeks declarations as to its proper construction – where the will is “homemade” and written by a testator with limited written English ability – where a beneficiary contends that the will gifts to him a life interest in real property – where a beneficiary may be owed debts by the estate – whether the will should be construed as requiring the executor to any pay proceeds of the real property sale to a beneficiary who claims to be owed debts by the estate – how the will should be construed generally

Carson v Presbyterian Church of Queensland [1956] St R Qd 466

Fell v Fell (1922) 31 CLR 268

Houston v Burns [1918] AC 337
Hurley v Hurley (1947) 75 CLR 289
King v King [2012] 2 Qd R 44
Langston v Langston (1834) 2 Cl & F 194
Lennon v Opalicki [2005] QSC 307
Lewis v O’Loughlin (1971) 125 CLR 320
Public Trustee of Queensland v Smith [2009] 1 Qd R 26
Re Burn (1918) 14 Tas LR 83
Re Bywater (1881) LR 18 Ch D 17
Re Crocombe [1949] SASR 302
Re Hoppe [1961] VR 381
Re O’Sullivan [1969] Qd R 516
Re Potter’s Will Trusts [1944] Ch 70
Re the Will of Mayer [1995] 2 Qd R 150
Rice v Rice (2015) 52 Fam LR 618

COUNSEL:

M W Crofton for the applicant / respondent

J Negrean for the third respondent / applicant (self- represented)

SOLICITORS:

The Estate Lawyers for the applicant / respondent

Introduction

Three applications in two proceedings were listed for hearing on 26 March 2025.
The persons appearing on the applications were Timotei Borbil (Tim) as executor of the estate of Raveica Negrean (Raveica), deceased, and John Negrean (John), one of the beneficiaries of the estate of Raveica.
Raveica’s husband pre-deceased her. She left five children – Cosmin Borbil (Cosmin), Crina Bocos (Crina), John, Elisei Borbil (Elisei) and Tim. All of those children, except John, have their own children – the grandchildren of Raveica.
Raveica died on 2 March 2019 leaving a will dated 18 February 2019. Probate of the will was granted to Tim on 14 July 2023.
Two of the applications were brought by John against Tim (as executor) on file 4542/23 (the probate…

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 Re Negrean; Borbil v Borbil 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: [2025] QSC 66
Decision Date: 3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Negrean; Borbil v Borbil involved the interpretation of a will that was handwritten by the deceased, who had limited proficiency in written English. The executor of the will sought declarations regarding its proper construction, while one of the beneficiaries argued that the will granted him a life interest in the deceased’s real property. The dispute also included whether the will required the executor to use the proceeds from the sale of the real property to settle debts owed to this beneficiary by the estate. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the will’s provisions.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of several testamentary dispositions within the handwritten will. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the will properly granted a life interest in the real property to one beneficiary and whether it mandated that the proceeds from the sale of the property be used to settle debts owed to another beneficiary by the estate. The court needed to apply principles of statutory interpretation and the rules governing the construction of wills, particularly given the limited proficiency of the deceased in English.

In resolving these issues, the court considered the language used in the will and the circumstances surrounding its creation. The court found that the language of the will did not clearly provide for a life interest in the real property to the first beneficiary, nor did it mandate that the proceeds from the sale be used to settle debts owed to the second beneficiary. Instead, the court held that the will should be interpreted in a manner that reflects the deceased’s intentions, taking into account the limited English proficiency of the testator. The court ultimately decided that the will did not impose the specific obligations argued by the beneficiary and directed that the form of the order be determined after further submissions from the parties.

The court's orders indicated that further submissions would be required from the parties to determine the appropriate form of order. The court did not immediately grant the declarations sought by the executor or the beneficiary but instead indicated that it would hear additional arguments on the form of the final order. This approach allowed the court to ensure that its final decision would comprehensively address all relevant issues and provide clear guidance to the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court will hear from the parties as to the form of order.

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.

CITATION:	Re Negrean; Borbil v Borbil [2025] QSC 66
PARTIES:	TIMOTEI BORBIL AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RAVEICA NEGREAN, DECEASED (Applicant / Respondent) v COSMIN FLORIN BORBIL (First respondent) CRINA FLORINA BOCOS (Second respondent) JOHN NEGREAN (Third respondent / Applicant) ELISEI SAMUEL BORBIL (Fourth respondent)
FILENO/S:	BS4542 of 2023 BS327 of 2025
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	3 April 2025
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	26 March 2025
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDER:	The Court will hear from the parties as to the form of order.
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF TESTMENTARY DISPOSITIONS – CONSTRUCTION GENERALLY – where the executor of a will seeks declarations as to its proper construction – where the will is “homemade” and written by a testator with limited written English ability – where a beneficiary contends that the will gifts to him a life interest in real property – where a beneficiary may be owed debts by the estate – whether the will should be construed as requiring the executor to any pay proceeds of the real property sale to a beneficiary who claims to be owed debts by the estate – how the will should be construed generally Carson v Presbyterian Church of Queensland [1956] St R Qd 466