SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Re Krepela (dec’d) [2024] QSC 281	
PARTIES:	IN THE WILL OF KAREL KREPELA
(deceased)
VLADISLAV VALIS 
(applicant)	
FILE NO:	4311 of 2024	
DIVISION:	Trial Division	
PROCEEDING:	Application	
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane	
DELIVERED ON:	13 November 2024	
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
HEARING DATE:	Application on the papers	
JUDGE:	Davis J	
ORDERS:	1.	The application be determined without an oral 	hearing.
2.	Subject to the formal requirements of the registrar, letters of administration of the will of Karel Krepela dated 21 September 2023 be granted to Vladislav Valis.
3.	The costs of the application be borne by the estate on an indemnity basis.
	
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – GRANTS OF PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION – where the deceased made a will on 21 September 2023 – where he appointed executors Michael Wright, a solicitor, and Donna Hromek – where the deceased died without spouse or children – where the will made specific bequests – where the will left the residue to Vladislav Valis and Elaine Madie Valis – where Michael Wright renounced administration – where Donna Hromek cannot be contacted – where Vladislav Valis applies for letters of administration – whether administration of the estate ought to be given to Vladislav Valis
Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 6
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 489, r 603
Re Clout & Frewer’s Contract [1924] 2 Ch 230, cited
Re Gordon; Roberts v Gordon (1877) 6 Ch D 531, cited Scarpuzza v Scarpuzza [2011] WASC 65, cited	
SOLICITORS:	Michelle Porcheron Lawyers for the applicant	
[1]	An application has been filed showing Valis Vladislav as the applicant.  It is apparent from the material, including an affidavit sworn by the applicant, that his name is Vladislav Valis.
[2]	Mr Valis seeks letters of administration of the will of Karel Krepela and seeks to have the application determined on the papers without oral hearing.
Background
[3]	Mr Krepela died on 25 October 2023 at the age of 78.  He had been married but was divorced.  He had no children.
[4]	His last will was made on 21 September 2023.  By that will he:
(a)	appointed Michael Wright, a solicitor, and Donna Hromek his executors and trustees;
(b)	made specific bequests to the Cerebal Palsy League, Guide Dogs Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and to Starlight Children’s Foundation; and
(c)	he gave the residue of his estate in equal shares to Mr Valis and Elaine Madie Valis.
[5]	Michael Wright renounced any claim to administration.
[6]	Attempts have been made to contact Donna Hromek and all these attempts have failed.
The issues
[7]	There are three issues, namely:
(a)	should the application be heard on the papers?
(b)	has Donna Hromek renounced her rights to administration?
(c)	should Mr Valis be granted letters of administration?
Determination without oral hearing
[8]	Mr Valis seeks to have the application determined without oral hearing.  Rule 489 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 provides for such a procedure:
“489 	Proposal for decision without oral hearing 
(1) 	A party making an application, including an application in a proceeding, may propose in the application that it be decided without an oral hearing. 
(2)	If the applicant proposes the application be decided without an oral hearing, the court must decide the application without an oral hearing unless— 
(a) 	under rule 491, the court considers it inappropriate to do so; or 
(b) 	under rule 494, the respondent requires an oral hearing; or 
(c) 	under rule 495, the applicant abandons the request for a decision without an oral hearing; or 
(d) 	the Chief Justice or Chief Judge suspends the operation of this rule by direction.”
[9]	The structure of r 489 is that:
(a)	jurisdiction to proceed without an oral hearing is granted;
(b)	the jurisdiction is enlivened by a proposal by an applicant; and
(c)	the proposal must be accepted in the absence of any of the circumstances prescribed in rr 489(2)(a)-(d).
[10]	None of the circumstances identified in rr 489(2)(c) and (d) arise.  There is no respondent so r 489(2)(b) is of no relevance.  The sole question is whether the court considers it inappropriate to determine the matter without oral hearing.
[11]	No facts seem seriously to be in issue.  Mr Valis is the only person (with Mrs Valis) with a real interest in the estate apart from a number of charities who are the subject of specific bequeaths.  It is appropriate to proceed without oral hearing.
Has Donna Hromek renounced her rights to administration?
[12]	The last known address for Donna Hromek was 26 Scott Street, Toongabbie, New South Wales.  That address is mentioned in Mr Krepela’s will.
[13]	On 20 November 2023, the solicitors for Mr Valis wrote to Ms Hromek advising her of Mr Krepela’s death and advising her that she was the sole executor of the estate.  By that stage Mr Wright had renounced.  The letter asked her for a response.  None eventuated.
[14]	On 2 February 2024, different solicitors, now acting for Mr Valis, again wrote to Ms Hromek.  Again, there was no reply.
[15]	A process server was engaged.  On 24 February 2024, he attended at the address at 26 Scott Street, Toongabbie, only to find the property vacant.
[16]	Facebook searches identified Ms Hromek as using a name “Dana Calvert”.  Messages were sent via that social media platform but there was no response.
[17]	Further investigations revealed a mobile telephone number for both Dana Calvert and her son, Tom Calvert.  Text messages were sent to both, advising the death of Mr Krepela and the fact that Donna Hromek was named as executor.  The texts requested a response but there was no reply.
[18]	Australian Electoral Roll searches identified addresses for Dana Calvert.  Letters were sent to those addresses by Mr Valis’ solicitors but there was no response.
[19]	It was ascertained that the property at Toongabbie was sold by the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian, which is the administrator of the estate of Jana Hromek, Donna Hromek’s mother.  The New South Wales Trustee and Guardian was contacted and sent a copy of Mr Valis’ application in draft.  Still no contact has been made by Donna Hromek.
[20]	A right to administer an estate may be expressly renounced.  Renunciation may also be implied by inaction or by action inconsistent with acceptance of the grant.  The question is whether the circumstances show an unequivocal intention not to act in the estate.
[21]	I find that Donna Hromek is aware of the death of Mr Krepela and that she was named as executor in his will.  It may have been that by the time the solicitors for Mr Valis sent correspondence to her she had left the Toongabbie residence.  However, it is likely that she received both the social media messages and the text messages and she has chosen not to contact the solicitors and chosen not to assert any right to administration of the estate.
[22]	In all the circumstances in my view, she has renounced any right to administration.
Should administration be granted to Mr Valis?
[23]	Both executors named in the will have renounced.  Any person may apply for a grant.  Rule 603 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 provides for an order of priority for the grant of letters of administration with the will.  Rule 603 provides relevantly:
“603 	Priority for letters of administration with the will 
(1) 	The descending order of priority of persons to whom the court may grant letters of administration with the will is as follows— 
(a) 	a trustee of the residuary estate; 
(b) 	a life tenant of any part of the residuary estate;
(c) 	a remainderman of any part of the residuary estate; 
(d) 	another residuary beneficiary; 
(e) 	a person otherwise entitled to all or part of the residuary estate, by full or partial intestacy; 
(f) 	a specific or pecuniary legatee; 
(g) 	a creditor or person who has acquired the entire beneficial interest under the will; 
(h) 	any one else the court may appoint.
(2) 	The court may grant letters of administration with the will to any person, in priority to any person mentioned in subrule (1). 
(3) 	If 2 or more persons have the same priority, the order of priority must be decided according to which of them has the greater interest in the estate. 
(4) 	Each applicant must establish the person’s priority by providing evidence that each person higher in the order of priority is not entitled to priority because of death, incapacity or renunciation. 
(5) 	A document providing evidence for subrule (4) must be an exhibit to the affidavit in support of the application. 
(6) 	The applicant need not establish priority for a person equal to or lower than the applicant in the order of priority.”
[24]	As there is no person fitting the description in r 603(1)(a), (b) or (c), Mr Valis has priority as the residuary beneficiary.  There is no reason to displace his priority.
Conclusions
[25]	I conclude that:
(a)	the will of Karel Krepela made 21 September 2023 is his last will;
(b)	the two named executors, Michael Wright and Donna Hromek, have renounced any right to administration of the will;
(c)	Vladislav Valis is one of two joint residual beneficiaries;
(d)	he has priority as a residual beneficiary; and
(e)	letters of administration ought to be granted to him.
Orders
[26]	It is ordered that:
1.	    The application be determined without an oral hearing.
2.	Subject to the formal requirements of the registrar, letters of administration of the will of Karel Krepela dated 21 September 2023 be granted to Vladislav Valis.
3.	The costs of the application be borne by the estate on an indemnity basis.