VITAS -v- CAMERON [2026] WASC 156

[2026] WASC 156 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : VITAS -v- CAMERON [2026] WASC 156 CORAM : MASTER RUSSELL HEARD : 12 FEBRUARY 2026 & ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 28 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 1663 of 2025 BETWEEN : LIZA MICHELLE VITAS Plaintiff AND MARIAN TERESA CAMERON First Defendant MARIAN TERESA CAMERON as administrator of the estate of PATRICIA JOY MARY DICKSON Second Defendant Catchwords: Administration of estates - Application for orders in relation to distribution of estate - s 45 Administration Act 1903 (WA) - Turns on own facts Costs - Costs of litigant in person limited to recovery of actual out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred - Turns on own facts Legislation: Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 43(2), s 45, s 45(1) Non-contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA) r 37(9) -- 1 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 Page 2 Result: Application granted Orders made pursuant to s 45 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA) Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : In person First Defendant : No appearance Second Defendant : No appearance Solicitors: Plaintiff : In person First Defendant : No appearance Second Defendant : No appearance Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 Keremestevski v McLeod as executor of the estate of Mark Adrian McLeod [2024] WASCA 12 Natale v Brown as executor of the estate of Natale [2025] WASC 492 (S) Pacella v Sherborne [2009] WASC 58 -- 2 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 3 MASTER RUSSELL: Overview 1 These proceedings concern the estate of the late Patricia Joy Mary Dickson (Estate), who died intestate on 31 March 2022. 2 The deceased was survived by two daughters, the plaintiff, Liza Michelle Vitas, and the first defendant, Marian Teresa Cameron, who are each entitled in distribution to 50% of the residue of the Estate. Ms Cameron is the second defendant in her capacity as administrator of the Estate. 3 In these reasons, I refer to the plaintiff as Ms Vitas and to the first defendant as Ms Cameron. To avoid any confusion, when referring to Ms Cameron in her capacity as administrator of the Estate, I will refer to her as the Administrator. 4 On 23 January 2025, orders were made by a registrar of the Court, in relation to the passing of accounts in probate proceeding PRO 4388 of 2022 (Probate Proceeding). The orders certified that the Administrator's final accounts as filed on 18 October 2024 (Estate Accounts), including the plan of distribution, had been examined, passed and allowed and were in order for distribution. 5 By originating summons filed on 23 June 2025, Ms Vitas applies, pursuant to s 45(1) of the Administration Act 1903 (WA), for orders requiring the defendants to pay to her $14,922.50, being the amount to be distributed to her, as stated in the plan of distribution in the Estate Accounts. 6 Ms Vitas also seeks orders that the defendants pay her costs, including solicitor's fees she has incurred, in relation to this proceeding and the Probate Proceeding. 7 I set out the affidavits sworn and relied upon by Ms Vitas in the following section of these reasons. 8 Ms Vitas has also filed an affidavit of service sworn by process server, Graeme David Thompson, on 2 July 2025, in which Mr Thompson verifies service of the originating summons and other documents on the defendants on 28 June 2025. 9 Based on Mr Thompson's affidavit, I am satisfied that the defendants have been served with, and are on notice of, the application. -- 3 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 4 Ms Cameron has not entered an appearance or taken any part in the proceedings in her own capacity or as Administrator. 10 I have considered the evidence filed in support of Ms Vitas' application. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make orders: (a) requiring the Administrator to pay the amount of $14,922.50 to Ms Vitas as her entitlement in distribution from the Estate; and (b) that the Administrator pay Ms Vitas' costs of the proceedings, limited to her out of pocket expenses of $4,942, which are to be paid by the Administrator personally and are not to be paid out of Ms Vitas' share of the Estate. Materials relied upon 11 In support of her application and the costs sought, Ms Vitas relies on her affidavits sworn on:1 (a) 23 June 2025 (Vitas June 2025 Affidavit); (b) 6 August 2025 (First Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit),2 which relates to her claim for costs; and (c) 7 August 2025 (Vitas 7 August 2025 Affidavit),3 which relates to her claim for costs and other matters. 12 Ms Cameron has also sworn and filed two further affidavits in support of orders sought permitting service of further documents on the defendants to be effected by email. This is because Ms Cameron is no longer living at her previous address and, despite requests, Ms Vitas does not have a postal address for her. The further affidavits are Ms Vitas' affidavits sworn on 6 August 2025 (Second Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit)4 and 24 November 2025 (Vitas November 2025 Affidavit). 1 The folioed document numbers are included in relation to the affidavits sworn and filed on or about the same dates. 2 Folioed document 5. 3 Folioed document 6. 4 Folioed document 7. -- 4 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 5 Relevant factual background 13 The following uncontested factual background and the context in which Ms Vitas brings her application is largely derived from the Vitas June 2025 Affidavit. 14 Ms Vitas and Ms Cameron are the only surviving children of the deceased and the persons entitled in distribution to the residue of the Estate.5 15 Letters of Administration were granted to the Administrator on 9 February 2023.6 16 A notice to pass accounts was issued in the Probate Proceedings on 4 September 2024, requiring the Administrator to file accounts and a plan of distribution, verified by affidavit, by 2 October 2024.7 The time for compliance was extended to 16 October 2024.8 The Administrator subsequently filed the Estate Accounts, verified by affidavit, and a book of supporting documents on 18 October 2024.9 17 The amount available for distribution, as set out in the plan of distribution in the Estate Accounts is modest. After payment of expenses, including legal fees, the total amount available for distribution is $29,845, to be distributed equally between Ms Vitas and Ms Cameron ($14,922.50 each). 18 Ms Vitas' former solicitors sent two letters, dated 31 October 2024 and 14 November 2024, to the Administrator's solicitors requesting Ms Vitas' half share of the residue of the Estate in the amount of $14,922.50, to be paid to their trust account.10 19 By email sent in relation to the Probate Proceedings on 26 November 2024, the Administrator's solicitors informed the Court and Ms Vitas' solicitors that their instructions to act for the Administrator had ceased, and provided her direct contact details, including her residential address, email and mobile telephone number.11 5 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [8]. 6 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [6] - [7], 'LMV2'. 7 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [17] - [18], 'LMV6'. 8 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [19] - [20], 'LMV7'. 9 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [21] - [22], 'LMV8'. Ms Vitas deposes that the accounts were filed on 17 October 2024. Although that is the date stated on the Estate Accounts as the date of filing, the orders made on 23 January 2025 record that they were filed on 18 October 2024. 10 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [23] - [24], [26] - [27], 'LMV9', 'LMV10'. 11 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [28] - [29], 'LMV11'. -- 5 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 6 20 On 23 January 2025, orders were made in the Probate Proceedings certifying that the Estate Accounts filed, including the plan for distribution, had been examined, passed and allowed and were in order for distribution.12 21 Despite requests made of the Administrator, she has not accounted to Ms Vitas for the amount of $14,922.50, representing her half share of the residue of the Estate, as set out in the Estate Accounts and plan of distribution.13 22 Although the Administrator has raised issues that she says require further enquiry or investigation, and indicated that she was to seek advice and would be 'applying for an appeal',14 no further action has been taken by her and no distribution made to Ms Vitas. 23 Ms Vitas applies for orders, pursuant to s 45 of the Administration Act, that the Administrator pay to her the amount of $14,922.50, being Ms Vitas' entitlement in distribution to half of the residue of the Estate, as set out in the plan of distribution. Applicable legal principles 24 The Court has a broad power under s 45 of the Administration Act in relation to the determination of questions arising in the administration of an estate and in relation to the distribution of an estate. The breadth of the Court's discretion under s 45 is evident from the text of the section, which provides: 45. Court may settle all questions arising in administration (1) The Court may make such order with reference to any question arising in respect of any will or administration, or with reference to the distribution or application of any real and personal estate which an executor or administrator or Public Trustee may have in hand, or as to the residue of the estate, as the circumstances of the case may require. (2) Such order shall bind all persons whether sui juris or not. 12 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [34] - [35], 'LMV14'. 13 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [38] - [39], 'LMV16', 14 Vitas June 2025 Affidavit [36] - [37], 'LMV15'; [40] - [45], 'LMV17' - ‘LMV19’; Second Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit, Annexures 'A', 'E', 'F' and 'G'. -- 6 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 7 (3) No final order for distribution shall be made except upon notice to all the parties interested, or as the Court may direct. 25 In Pacella v Sherborne,15 Master Sanderson observed that the phrase 'any question arising in respect of any will or administration, or with reference to the distribution or application of any real or personal estate …' is entirely open-ended, and clearly shows the legislature was intending to provide the Court with the widest possible discretion to deal with problems which arise in relation to the administration of an estate. Determination 26 I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which the Court's power to make an order under s 45 of the Administration Act is enlivened. The question raised, and in respect of which an order is sought, concerns the administration of the Estate and the distribution of the residue of the Estate. 27 The Administrator has verified the Estate Accounts, which include the plan of distribution, by affidavit. The orders made in relation to the passing of accounts on 23 January 2025 do not require that the amounts set out in the plan of distribution be distributed. However, the order is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the Estate Accounts.16 28 The amount to be distributed is modest. More than a year has elapsed since the Estate Accounts were passed and, despite the requests made of the Administrator, Ms Vitas has not received distribution of her entitlement. 29 Although the Administrator has referred in communications following the passing of the Estate Accounts to matters she says require investigation, there is no evidence before the Court that she has taken any further action, or as to any reason why the residue of the Estate should not be distributed in accordance with the plan of distribution. 30 Ms Cameron, as the Administrator, and in her personal capacity as the other person entitled in distribution to the residue of the Estate, have been served with the originating summons and supporting affidavit. They have not filed an appearance or sought to be heard. 15 Pacella v Sherborne [2009] WASC 58 [12]. 16 Administration Act s 43(2). -- 7 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 8 31 On the material before me, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under s 45 of the Administration Act to make an order requiring the Administrator to pay the amount of $14,922.50 to Ms Vitas in respect of her entitlement to half of the residue of the Estate. I will make an order that the Administrator pay that amount to Ms Vitas within 14 days of the date of service of the orders on her, rather than seven days of the date of the order, as sought in the originating summons. 32 There is no basis for making an order that the first defendant, Ms Cameron in her personal capacity, pay any amount to Ms Vitas in respect of Ms Vitas' entitlement from the Estate. Costs 33 In addition to orders concerning the distribution of the Estate, Ms Vitas also seeks to recover costs that she has incurred in seeking to obtain her distribution, including costs incurred in respect of these proceedings in relation to the Probate Proceedings.17 34 Costs in relation to the passing of the Estate Accounts in the Probate Proceedings are in the discretion of the registrar.18 Any application for costs in respect of the Probate Proceedings should be made and determined in those proceedings. 35 As to the costs of these proceedings, Ms Vitas claims costs charged by her solicitors totalling $5,005.19 Ms Vitas has produced a statement of account showing this amount, which is made up of invoices issued and paid between 30 January 2025 and 14 July 2025, before these proceedings were commenced.20 Ms Vitas has not produced copies of the invoices or any breakdown of the fees charged. 36 Ms Vitas also seeks to recover the court fees she has paid in this proceeding and the fee paid to the process server for personal service of the court documents on the defendants. The total amount of those expenses is $4,942, being: (a) the fee paid on filing the originating summons of $1,908; (b) the fee of $2,616 paid on filing the notice of appointment to hear the originating summons; and 17 First Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit [7] - [8], 'LMV20', [9] - [10], 'LMV21', [12]. 18 Non-contentious Probate Rules 1967 (WA) r 37(9). 19 First Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit [9]. 20 First Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit [10], 'LMV21'. -- 8 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 9 (c) the process server's fees of $418.21 37 Ms Vitas seeks orders that the Administrator not be entitled to any indemnity from the Estate for the costs of or incidental to these proceedings and that Ms Cameron pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.22 38 It is unfortunate that Ms Vitas has had to resort to commencing proceedings against the Administrator to receive her modest entitlement in distribution from the Estate, and that she has been put to the costs of doing so. 39 Although Ms Vitas sought legal advice and obtained legal assistance in the lead up to commencing these proceedings, she has brought the proceedings as a litigant in person. As a successful litigant in person, Ms Vitas is only entitled to recover as costs any actual out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred by her.23 40 I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to order the Administrator to pay the legal fees claimed by Ms Vitas. However, I am satisfied that Ms Vitas is entitled to recover as costs her out of pocket expenses in respect of the court and process server's fees she has paid, which total $4,942, as outlined. 41 In the circumstances, where the Administrator has failed and refused to pay Ms Vitas her entitlement, the Administrator should be ordered to pay those costs. Such costs are not to be paid out of Ms Vitas' share of the Estate. Service on the defendants 42 I have considered Ms Vitas' affidavits relating to service of further documents on the defendants,24 from which I accept that Ms Cameron is no longer residing at her previous address. I am satisfied that documents sent to her by email to the address referred to, from which Ms Cameron has previously sent communications to the plaintiff and to the Court, are likely to come to Ms Cameron's (and, it follows, the Administrator's) attention. 21 Vitas 7 August 2025 Affidavit [10], 'Attachment 5 Annexure I'. 22 First Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit [11] - [12]. 23 See Natale v Brown as executor of the estate of Natale [2025] WASC 492 (S) [18] (Gething J), citing Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403, 410 - 417 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson & McHugh JJ); Keremestevski v McLeod as executor of the estate of Mark Adrian McLeod [2024] WASCA 12 (S) [24] (Quinlan CJ, Vandongen JA & Seaward J). 24 See Second Vitas 6 August 2025 Affidavit; Vitas November 2025 Affidavit. -- 9 of 10 -- [2026] WASC 156 MASTER RUSSELL Page 10 43 I will also make an order that the plaintiff serve a copy of the orders to be made on the defendants by email to that address. Conclusion and orders 44 For these reasons, orders will be made to the effect that: 1. Pursuant to s 45(1) of the Administration Act 1903 (WA), within 14 days of the date of service of these orders, the second defendant, as the administrator of the estate of Patricia Joy Mary Dickson (Estate), is to distribute and pay the amount of $14,922.50 to the plaintiff, being the plaintiff's entitlement in distribution to the residue of the Estate as set out in the plan of distribution in the accounts of the Estate certified as passed by the Orders of Registrar Griffin made on 23 January 2025 in PRO 4388 of 2022 . 2. The second defendant is also to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings fixed in the amount of $4,942, being the total of the court fees and process server's fees paid by the plaintiff. 3. The costs payable to the plaintiff pursuant to order 2 are to be paid by the second defendant and are not to be paid out of the plaintiff's share of the Estate. 4. Within seven (7) days of the date of these orders, the plaintiff is to serve a copy of these orders on the defendants by email to [redacted]. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. SC Associate to Master Russell 28 APRIL 2026 -- 10 of 10 --