This article explores when the Supreme Court of Queensland intervenes in estate administration. It also discusses the fiduciary duties of executors and administrators and explains the threshold for court supervision, directions, or replacement.
The Succession Act 1981 (Qld) provides the statutory basis for the Court’s powers, including its discretion in estate administration. Executors must understand the practical risks of failing to act impartially or transparently.
This article is particularly useful for practitioners advising executors and beneficiaries. It reflects the growing trend of estate-dispute litigation in Queensland and offers practical guidance for estate planning and litigation lawyers.
Fiduciary Duties and Accountability in Queensland Estates – Insights from Dalziel v Budulica [2025] QSC 171
This case highlights conduct that can expose an executor or administrator to litigation. It also clarifies the evidentiary burden beneficiaries face when alleging mismanagement.
What Was This Case About?
The proceeding involved the estate of Kadica Budulica, who died on 8 December 2013, leaving a will dated 20 December 2000. The will appointed her son, Stan, as executor and gifted the entire estate to him and Ms Budulica, the second respondent.
The estate remained in litigation for more than 11 years, including an application to remove Stan as executor. Ultimately, the Court removed Stan and appointed a solicitor nominated by the President of the Queensland Law Society as substitute executor. The applicant, Mr Dalziel, received letters of administration with the will on 3 July 2023.
Mr Dalziel applied for orders under section 6 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) to finalise the estate administration. He acted independently and had no interest in the estate; his sole aim was to discharge his duties. The respondents, Stan and Sylvia, represented themselves.
Key Questions Raised by the Case
- What constitutes mismanagement versus mere disagreement?
- How do courts balance family conflict against administrative efficiency?
- What are the cost consequences for executors who face unsuccessful challenges?
Judicial Advice: What Does It Mean?
The Supreme Court explained that judicial advice proceedings aim to guide the administrator, not to determine the parties’ rights and obligations. These proceedings are summary in nature and should not resemble a trial. Judicial advice protects the trust and the trustee who acts on the Court’s guidance. The Court can give advice even when facts remain contentious and unresolved.
Disputes Over Estate Expenses
Sylvia disputed whether certain expenses incurred during Stan’s tenure as executor were proper estate expenses. The Court found Sylvia’s evidence lacked compelling proof and amounted to mere suspicion. This underscores the need for allegations to rely on verifiable facts.
Costs Incurred by Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries seeking reimbursement from the estate must justify those expenses. In this case, the Court ordered the estate to cover the administrator’s costs without adjusting between beneficiaries. However, Sylvia’s application to recover her costs failed because she did not justify them. She had to bear her own legal costs.
How Innojustice Lawyers Can Help
At Innojustice Lawyers, we help beneficiaries understand their legal position in disputes with other beneficiaries and often resolve matters without litigation when possible. Litigation may not be necessary if parties pursue an amicable solution.
We offer support with:
- Reviewing your will
- Advising whether adequate family provision exists
- Providing a reasonable estimate of potential outcomes
- Assisting with presenting your case to the Court (if needed)
For tailored advice, contact Innojustice Lawyers at [email protected].
Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. External links (if any) are provided for reference.