The court found no evidence of serious injustice and no improper conduct by the executors
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking to replace the executors of an insolvent estate with the Public Trust to pursue a Property (Relationships) Act claim, finding no legal basis to reopen the estate, no evidence of serious injustice, and no improper conduct by the executors.
The disputed property, located in St Mary’s Bay, was valued between $1.9m and $2.25m for a half-share. The appellant claimed that if the estate were enlarged through litigation, she would become entitled to a portion under intestacy laws, as the original residual beneficiary under the will no longer existed. The estate was otherwise insolvent, with only artwork as remaining assets.
The application was denied in the High Court. The judge found that s. 19 of the Administration Act was not an appropriate mechanism for reopening a lawfully concluded estate. Even if it were applicable, the Public Trust would require court approval to bring the proposed legal action, and there was no certainty that such approval would be granted. The judge also noted that no evidence had been presented on how the Public Trust would fund its administration. The appellant was ordered to pay costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s decision but clarified certain legal points. It disagreed with the view that s. 19 could never be used to reopen an estate but found no justification for doing so in this case. The court held that the executors were not legally required to obtain probate, given that the estate’s liabilities and modest assets did not necessitate formal probate proceedings.
The court examined whether the Public Trust had a credible claim under the Property (Relationships) Act. It found that the appellant had not demonstrated serious injustice, a necessary condition for the claim to proceed. There was no evidence of financial need, breach of moral duty, or special circumstances warranting intervention. The deceased’s decisions, including property transfers and the terms of the will, reflected clear intentions that aligned with the estate’s administration.
The court also considered the potential conflict of interest in administering the estate but concluded that the existing executors had not acted improperly. The deceased’s de facto partner had contributed financially to the property and had cared for the deceased in his final years. The appellant, by contrast, had been estranged from the deceased for a significant period before his death.
While the court acknowledged that the Public Trust was not required to provide evidence of funding, it emphasised that its position should be clearly recorded in such cases. Ultimately, the court found no basis for replacing the executors and dismissed the appeal.
