Carr v Larussa

[2016] WASC 13

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Executors and Trustees
2. › Private advice application
3. › Direction sought under s 92 Trustees Act 1962 (WA)
4. › Whether administrator justified in defending claims in capacity as administratrix
5. › Whether issues properly arguable
6. › Whether sufficient prospects of success
7. › Trustees Act 1962 (WA), s 92
1. Executors and Trustees
2. › Removal of administrator
3. › Conflict of interest
4. › Administrator retaining own law firm
5. › Administrator also a beneficiary
6. › Whether conflict sufficient to warrant removal
7. › Whether properly arguable that no conflict arises
1. Succession Law
2. › Informal wills
3. › Unexecuted document
4. › Whether facsimile copy of unexecuted will constitutes informal will
5. › Whether deceased intended document to have present operation as will
6. › Wills Act 1970 (WA), Pt X, s 33(2)(a)
1. Executors and Trustees
2. › Duties of administrator
3. › Whether part of administrator's role to defend validity of appointment
4. › Duty to ensure due and proper administration of estate

Quick Take

It is part of the role of a personal representative, and in particular an administrator, to defend the validity of the appointment and the way in which the administration has been conducted, and this role may be discharged by both contesting and compromising claims. An administrator who obtains a direction under s 92 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA) that she is justified in defending proceedings in her capacity as administratrix is entitled to reimbursement of costs from the estate, subject to review under RSC O 66 r 9(2).