The Estate of Edith Macdougall

[2013] NSWSC 990

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Estate of Edith Macdougall [2013] NSWSC 990
Hearing dates:	12/07/2013
Decision date:	12 July 2013
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	McDougall J
Decision:	Special letters of administration granted. Ancillary orders made.
Catchwords:	WILLS & ESTATES - letters of administration - application for special letters of administration - where deceased required to be replaced as director of corporate trustee of SMSF within 4 days - where SMSF otherwise non-compliant - where prospective contestant of will consents to orders sought
Legislation Cited:	Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Allan Rowlands Clinch (Plaintiff)
Representation:	Counsel: ARA Kuklik (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Clinch Long Letherbarrow (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2013/198006

Judgment (ex tempore - revised 12 july 2013)

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application for special letters of administration of the estate of the late Edith Macdougall (the deceased). The deceased died on 16 January 2013.

1. On the evidence so far, the deceased may have made at least two wills. One will was made on 19 September 2007. Under that will, the substantial beneficiary was her husband.

1. The deceased also made a will (or a document purporting to be a will) on 25 July 2012. Under that will, her husband receives a life interest in certain real estate, but otherwise is not a substantial beneficiary.

1. It seems that the husband wishes to challenge the later will on the ground that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when she made it.

1. In the ordinary way that issue would be fought out in an application for probate of the later will. However, there is a feature of urgency in this case.

1. The deceased and her husband were members of a self managed superannuation fund. That fund has substantial assets. If the fund is to remain a "compliant" fund for the purposes of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), the deceased (who was a director of its trustee) must be replaced as such director within six months of the date of her death. That means that the replacement must be effected by 16 July 2013.

1. The plaintiff is a member of the firm of solicitors appointed by the deceased to be, or to provide, the executor and trustee of her later will. He has been nominated by the firm to seek the order in this case.

1. The deceased's husband, who wishes to challenge the later will, consents to the order for special letters of administration being made.

1. That is sensible, because if the orders are not made and the superannuation fund becomes non-compliant, there will be a tax bill of the order of $4.4 million potentially exigible. It is in the interests of no one except the Revenue for that to happen.

1. In the circumstances, where the person principally affected consents to the orders sought, it seems to me eminently sensible to grant the orders so that the assets of the estate may be protected, and so that the very significant consequences to which I have referred do not follow simply because, as a result of the dispute or possible dispute, there is no one in a position to take over the deceased's directorship of the trustee company.

1. In the same circumstances, it is sensible to do as is requested and dispense with an administration bond and surety.

1. I make orders in accordance with paras 1 to 4 as amended of the form of order initialled by me and dated today's date.

1. I order that the notice of application published on 28 June 2013 stand as sufficient notice for the purposes of this application and that further notice be dispensed with.

1. I direct that these orders be entered forthwith.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 July 2013