Crown -v- Holt [2024] WASC 332 involved probate of a Will, in which the deceased’s son Robert Glen Holt was named the executor. (the defendant). In addition, the deceased made the following gifts:
1. the amount of $10,000 to the defendant to ‘take me and my wife’s remains to NZ for burial’; and
2. his car and his goods and chattels to the defendant.
The Will divided the residue of the estate into equal shares between the defendant and his sisters, Tania Marie Holt and Jennifer Alexander.
Robert Wilfred Holt (the deceased) died on 18 September 2022. The Supreme Court of Western Australia granted the defendant probate of the deceased’s Will on 9 January 2023.
The matter
A writ of summons commenced the proceedings filed by Crown (the plaintiff) on 12 April 2023. In a letter dated 21 March 2023 to the defendant, the plaintiff’s then solicitors referred to the defendant’s email sent to the plaintiff on 12 March 2023 that:
It’s all done and dusted. I went to a solicitor. Everything has been closed like what Dad asked us to do, which we have. [at 12]
The same letter recorded that the defendant had stated in a second email:
We have your money; we do not have any statements. As it was all done properly, it is my business.[at 13]
In a reference to a third email sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12 March 2023, the defendant stated:
Go through your lawyers, but it comes from your money because that’s all left. Then we will charge you for the left of Mum’s jewellery. We are divorcing you as your sister since you have disowned us and our parents. Don’t forget you already disowned me and my father. I will get the value of the jewellery you stole. Have a great day.[at 14]
By letter dated 14 March 2023, the plaintiff’s solicitors sought:
- a complete copy of the grant of probate and
- statements of all bank accounts held by the deceased showing the balance of those accounts at the date of his death and
- requested that the defendant identify when he expected to pay the plaintiff her share of the estate.
On 20 March 2023, the defendant responded by email stating:
I have received these documents from my sister, Tania Marie Holt, who lives in New Zealand. Once the other paperwork is completed, all recipients named on the will will receive the correct documentation. at [11]
Name Change
In response, the plaintiff’s solicitors, provided by letter dated 24 March 2023, certified true copies of
- several birth certificates in the names of Jenny Robin Holt and Jenny Robin Sullivan,
- an immigration citizenship certificate in the name of Jenny Robin Holt,
- a marriage certificate in the name of Jenny Robin (Holt) Alexander,
- a Birth Deaths and Marriages document recording the plaintiff’s change of name to ‘Crown’.
Additionally, the plaintiff established her identity using a New Zealand Copyright certificate for the name Lady Crown Turikatuku 111 sovereign de jure.
The plaintiff’s solicitors also confirmed that they had adequately identified their client through a face-to-face interview and by examining original identification documents.
Statutory Declarations
In response to the email, the defendant received from the plaintiff’s solicitors, statutory declarations provided by the plaintiff, her husband, and her two children confirming that the plaintiff’s original name was Jenny Robin Holt, then Jenny Robin Sullivan, and later Jenny Robin Alexander after marrying her husband, Dean Kapene Alexander. In 2018, notwithstanding the challenges, the plaintiff changed her name to ‘Crown’.
The statutory declarations also contained copies of two New South Wales driver’s licences with the same licence number and photos of the same person. The licences were issued in the names of Jennifer Robin Holt and Crown, proving that the New South Wales State government had officially recognised Jennifer Robin Holt and Crown as the same individual.
Additionally, the defendant mentioned interactions with another beneficiary and raised questions about the plaintiff’s identity and legal status. When the executor refused to recognise “Crown” as his sister, she took legal action against him to compel him to administer the estate properly.
The plaintiff’s then solicitors again sought copies of
- the statements for all bank accounts held by the deceased,
- a statement of the distribution of the estate showing the amounts due to be paid to the plaintiff and the other beneficiaries, and
- payment to the plaintiff of her share of the estate.
Decision
The Court established that ‘Crown’ was the daughter of the deceased, as identified in the relevant clause of the Will, based on statutory declarations and evidence, including copies of two NSW driver’s licenses bearing the same license number and photographs of the same person under both names showing that the NSW government had acknowledged both names as belonging to the same individual.
The Court found that the executor unreasonably refused to acknowledge “Crown” as his sister, likely intending to delay the distribution of her estate share. The basis for this refusal was his belief that “Crown” had stolen jewellery following their mother’s death.
However, the Court determined that the executor’s reasons were unjustified and that he had failed in his duties as an executor. The Court allowed the executor to recognise and rectify his failure to acknowledge “Crown” as his sister.
Consequently, the Court declared that the ‘Crown’ was indeed the same person as stated in the Will ordering the executor to
- administer the estate by the law,
- distribute the estate to the ‘Crown’ according to her entitlement under the Will,
- provide an account of property, debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and
- inquire about any outstanding parts of the estate.
The Court also indicated that it would assess the extent of the executor’s failure to administer the estate, to ensure that there was a fair resolution.
Costs
The Court believed that considering the defendant’s acknowledgment that his sister and the plaintiff were the same person in his email communication before the case was initiated, it would not be suitable for the plaintiff’s expenses for the case to come from the estate.
Similarly, in this instance, it is fitting for the defendant to personally cover the plaintiff’s costs incurred during the case, without access to the estate’s assets, on an indemnity basis.
The post Beneficiary changes name to a mononym appeared first on heirs & successes.