Stojic v Stojic

The matter before the court involved a dispute over the validity of a will and the appointment of administrators. Stojic, the deceased, left a will that named the plaintiffs as executors and beneficiaries. The defendant contested the will's validity and sought to be appointed as an administrator. The plaintiffs applied for themselves to be appointed as administrators of the will pending the hearing of the dispute. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiffs should be appointed despite the principle that a party to the proceedings will not ordinarily be appointed as an administrator.

The legal issue before the court was whether to depart from the principle in De Chatelain that a party to the proceedings will not ordinarily be appointed as an administrator. The court considered the risk of conflict, which it found to be more theoretical than real, and the urgency of the application. The court held that no proper alternative to the plaintiffs existed, and the urgency of the application warranted a departure from the principle. The court concluded that the discretionary exercise tipped in favour of appointing the plaintiffs as administrators.

The court granted the application for the plaintiffs to be appointed as administrators of the will pending the hearing. The court found that the risk of conflict was more theoretical than real and that there was no proper alternative to appointing the plaintiffs. The urgency of the application also warranted a departure from the principle in De Chatelain. The court held that the defendant's significant contempt of court orders did not preclude the plaintiffs from being appointed as administrators.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs be appointed as administrators of the will pending the hearing of the dispute. The court also noted that the defendant's significant contempt of court orders did not preclude the plaintiffs from being appointed as administrators. The court held that the defendant could oppose relief sought by the plaintiffs but could not be heard to propound himself as a candidate for administrator.