Beneficiary seeking administrator role frivolously criticised court and judge, ruling says
The New South Wales Supreme Court has dismissed proceedings against a barrister administering two estates upon finding an abuse of process and the presence of all criteria in r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
The case of Dunstan v Pringle, [2025] NSWSC 1050, arose from the estates of M.K. Irwin and K.A. Dunstan. K.A.’s mother, M.K., resided in a retirement community unit and paid the operators ongoing contributions.
M.K. passed away on 9 September 2022. Upon her death, the operators refunded about $300,000 to her estate. M.K.’s 28 August 1986 will equally divided her real and personal estate among K.A. and her other daughter, the second defendant in this case.
M.K.’s appointed executor, her husband, had predeceased her. The substitute executors – the second defendant and M.K.’s nephew – renounced their appointments.
K.A. was a friend of the first defendant, who was a barrister. K.A. died on 16 November 2022 in the Australian Capital Territory. K.A.’s 1 August 2015 will appointed the barrister as executor and trustee and equally divided her estate residue among her three daughters, including the plaintiff.
Upon K.A.’s death, half of M.K.’s estate passed to K.A.’s estate.
On 29 November 2024, the Supreme Court granted the barrister’s application for letters of administration to complete the administration of K.A.’s estate. The court annexed a copy of M.K.’s will.
The barrister’s administration relating to M.K.’s estate entailed gathering in the estate assets, paying M.K.’s debts, and distributing her personalty and jewellery to the second defendant, the plaintiff, and K.A.’s other daughters, in line with their wishes.
Notices of both estates’ intended distribution, published last May, provided that:
The trust account of the solicitor retained by the barrister drew a 6 June 2025 cheque for $49,218.52 in the plaintiff’s favour. However, an apparent alteration of the cheque’s words and numbers increased that amount to $89,218.52.
A bank honoured the altered cheque and depleted the solicitor’s trust account accordingly. The solicitor informed police and the Law Society of New South Wales. The bank refunded $32,000 and restored $8,000 to the solicitor’s trust account, which resulted in a shortfall.
On 25 June 2025, the plaintiff brought a claim against the barrister and the second defendant. She sought the discharge of both estates’ existing administration and her appointment as M.K.’s estate administrator.
The plaintiff alleged fraud, mismanagement, and bad faith in the existing estate administration. Specifically, she argued that:
On 26 August 2025, the barrister moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under r 13.4.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the proceedings against the barrister and awarded costs.
The court inferred from the evidence that the plaintiff, who was plainly not a beneficiary of M.K.’s estate, committed cheque fraud.
The court proposed to instruct the prothonotary to send the papers to the prosecuting authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, where K.A. died, and Western Australia, which covered the address where the plaintiff received her cheque and jewellery.
The court determined that the plaintiff:
The court saw no cognisable cause of action, no grounds for relief, and no basis for the plaintiff’s assertions of impropriety, fraud, and pillaging or her allegation that K.A. had been bankrupt.
The court called the barrister’s administration of both estates exemplary. The court noted that the barrister worked on gathering in and distributing the estate assets and finished administering the estates, except for a few minor outstanding matters.
