Probate transparency and the recent case of McCullough v Haigh [2025] WASC 352

The recent decision in McCullough v Haigh [2025] WASC 352 (McCullough v Haigh) serves as a powerful reminder that probate proceedings are not conducted behind closed doors; they are matters of public record.

Transparency in estate administration isn’t just a legal requirement; it’s a vital safeguard against mismanagement, ensuring accountability and protecting the rights of beneficiaries. We at Lavan, share such cases issued by the Supreme Court to raise awareness of the standards expected in estate administration and to highlight the consequences of failing to meet those standards. Our goal is to inform, prevent future disputes, and encourage responsible conduct by executors and beneficiaries alike.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in McCullough v Haigh, revoking a grant of probate due to persistent neglect by the appointed executor pursuant to a Will.

In this matter, the deceased’s sister, Deborah Ann Haigh, was granted probate in May 2024, but failed to take any substantive steps to administer the estate. Despite repeated inquiries from the Court, she did not respond, account for assets, or distribute entitlements. The estate remained wholly unadministered for over 30 months. It’s important to note that is a requirement that an executor act promptly and without undue delay to administer an estate.

Justice Gething found that Ms Haigh had persistently neglected her duties and revoked the grant of probate. Letters of administration with the will annexed were instead issued to another beneficiary, Ms Cherie Daniella McCullough, who had demonstrated diligence and competence.

In response, Ms Haigh lodged an objection to Ms McCullough’s application. She argued that she should retain her role and she continued to intermingle with the estate, including but not limited to, renting out the estate property without proper authority or accounting to beneficiaries.

However, Justice Gething found Ms Haigh’s objection to be without merit. The Court emphasized that the administration of an estate is not a matter of personal allegiance but of legal responsibility. Ms Haigh had failed to discharge her fiduciary duties for over 30 months, leaving the estate wholly unadministered.

The court ultimately rejected Ms Haigh’s objection and granted letters of administration to Ms McCullough, reinforcing the principle that competence and accountability must guide the appointment of estate administrators.

Key legal takeaways

• Executors must act promptly and transparently
• Failure to comply with account for assets may result in revocation
• Beneficiaries can seek the replacement of executors under WA legislation
• Courts will appoint administrators who demonstrate capacity and commitment

Avoiding similar issues

• Executors should seek legal assistance to seek probate
• Executors should seek legal advice immediately upon receiving probate
• Beneficiaries should monitor progress and raise concerns early
• Clear records and timely responses to court communications are essential
• Mediation or legal intervention should be pursued before mismanagement escalates

Do you need support

If you, or someone you know is experiencing issues with estate administration, especially in contested matters, please reach out to me and my team. We specialise in resolving probate disputes and ensuring estates are administered lawfully and fairly.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice in relation to any particular matter you may have before relying or acting on this information. The Lavan team are here to assist.