MUENKEL -v- MUENKEL [2026] WASC 340

[2026] WASC 340 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : MUENKEL -v- MUENKEL [2026] WASC 340 CORAM : MASTER RUSSELL HEARD : 12 AUGUST 2026 DELIVERED : 17 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 2335 of 2024 BETWEEN : JAN MUENKEL Plaintiff AND JAN MUENKEL First Defendant NADINE WINGENTER Second Defendant XI CHEN Third Defendant Catchwords: Administration of estates - Application for orders and declarations as to administration of estate - Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 45 - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 58 r 2(b), O 58 r 2(g) - Whether person is lawful child of deceased Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 12A - Turns on own facts -- 1 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 Page 2 Legislation: Administration Act 1903 (WA) s 12A, s 14, s 14(1), s 45 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 58 r 2, O 58 r 2(b), O 58 r 2(g) Result: Application granted in part Declaration made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : C A Gregson First Defendant : No appearance Second Defendant : R L Conder Third Defendant : In person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Gregson & Associates First Defendant : No appearance Second Defendant : Cullen Macleod Lawyers Third Defendant : In person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Pacella v Sherborne [2009] WASC 58 Riches v McInnes [2010] WASC 298 Sweeney v Castle [2014] WASC 266 The Public Trustee (as Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey Stephen Alau) v The Public Trustee of Queensland (as Administrator of the Estate of Ellen Padal Pearson) [2011] WASC 321 -- 2 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 3 MASTER RUSSELL: Introduction 1 These proceedings concern issues that have arisen in relation to the administration of the estate of the late Klaus Dieter Muenkel (Estate), who died on 15 February 2019 without leaving a will. 2 With no disrespect to the parties, the deceased and others referred to, once identified, I will refer to them by their first names. 3 The first plaintiff, Jan Muenkel, brings the proceeding as the administrator of the Estate. Jan is the son of Klaus and Klaus' first wife, who is now known as Ursula Humcke-Robson. Jan is also the first defendant in his personal capacity. He has not entered an appearance as the first defendant. I will refer to Jan in his capacity as administrator of the Estate as the Administrator and, in his personal capacity, as Jan. 4 It is now accepted by all parties that the second defendant, Nadine Wingenter, is the lawful child of Klaus and his second wife, Rita Ludwig. This was previously disputed by the third defendant, Xi Chen, who is Klaus' third wife and was married to Klaus when he died. 5 The Administrator applies by originating summons (Application)1 for a declaration as to whether Nadine is Klaus' lawful child and directions and declarations in relation to questions concerning a Deed of Family Arrangement entered into between Ursula, Jan and Xi on 8 September 2020 (Deed). The questions raised in the Application, as filed, are: 1. Whether Nadine is the lawful child of Klaus? 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that Nadine is the lawful child of Klaus. 3. If the answer to question 1 is no, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that Nadine is not the lawful child of Klaus. 4. If the answer to question 1 is yes, are cl 4 and cl 5 of the Deed void or otherwise voidable? 5. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is Nadine entitled to rescission of cl 4 and cl 5 of the Deed at her election? 1 Originating summons filed on 12 November 2024. -- 3 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 4 6 By the time of the hearing, although there was no longer an issue between the parties in relation to whether Nadine is Klaus' lawful child, declarations were still sought to the effect that: 1. Nadine is Klaus' lawful child; 2. the Deed or parts of it are voidable at the election of the first, second and third defendants; and 3. the Estate should be administered in accordance with s 14 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA). 7 The Administrator filed a notice of appointment to hear the Application on 8 April 2026. In support of the Application, the Administrator relies on an amended outline of submissions filed on 31 July 2026, an affidavit sworn by his solicitor, Craig Alan Gregson, on 1 November 2024 (Gregson Affidavit) and an affidavit affirmed by Jan on 20 June 2025 (Muenkel Affidavit). 8 Nadine relies on an outline of submissions filed on 6 July 2026 and her affidavit sworn on 13 May 2025 (Wingenter Affidavit), which is in German. The Wingenter Affidavit has been translated into English, as deposed to in and attached to the affidavit of translator, Angelika Stuard, sworn on 21 May 2025 (Stuard Affidavit). No issue has been taken in respect of the translation. 9 Xi filed an affidavit sworn by her on 30 July 2025, in which she disputed that Nadine was Klaus' lawful child (Chen Affidavit). She has also filed and relies on an outline of submissions filed on 22 July 2026, as amended and filed on 10 August 2026. Both are written and expressed in English, although Xi's first language is Mandarin. 10 Xi was represented by Tan & Tan Lawyers until 21 July 2026, when she filed a notice of change of representation stating that she intended to act in person. At the time of swearing the Chen Affidavit, its contents were interpreted to Xi in Mandarin by Tommy Tang, who has signed the Chen Affidavit and sworn that he has truly and faithfully interpreted its contents to Xi in the presence of the authorised witness and that she appeared to understand the affidavit. 11 The Application was originally listed for hearing on 30 July 2026. That hearing was adjourned so that arrangements could be made for a Mandarin interpreter. The hearing of the Application proceeded on 12 August 2026 with a Mandarin interpreter to interpret for Xi. -- 4 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 5 12 For the following reasons, I was satisfied that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child and I made a declaration to that effect. The Application was otherwise adjourned and orders made for the filing of further affidavits and submissions in relation to the performance of the terms of the Deed and the relief sought in respect of the Deed. Relevant factual background 13 The following uncontested factual background and the context in which the Application is made are derived from the affidavits filed. 14 Jan was born on 20 September 1973 in Minden, West Germany. He is the son of Klaus and his first wife, Ursula Muenkel, neé Humcke.2 Klaus and Ursula married in 1969 and divorced in 1973.3 Klaus married Rita in 1987 and they divorced in 2003.4 Klaus met Xi in 1999, while he was working in Shenzhen, China. Klaus and Xi's marriage was registered in Perth on 12 July 2004.5 15 The primary issue that arises in this case and in respect of which a declaration is sought is whether Nadine is Klaus' lawful child. 16 Nadine was born in Mannheim, Germany on 8 July 1976 as Nadine Margot Silla. She deposes that her parents are Klaus and Ortrud Wilhelmine Frieda Borowski. Attached to the Wingenter Affidavit are copies of Nadine's birth certificate, which records Ortrud as her mother and Klaus-Dieter Münkel as her father.6 17 Also attached to the Wingenter Affidavit is a copy of an extract from birth registration issued on 15 February 2024, apostilled on 27 March 2024, which records that Nadine's mother is Ortrud Wilhelmine Frieda Borowski and her father is Klaus-Dieter Münkel.7 18 A copy of a certificate of acknowledgment of paternity and obligation to provide maintenance dated 31 August 1976 and a translated version of the certificate is attached to the Wingenter 2 Gregson Affidavit [3], 'CAG-01'; Muenkel Affidavit [3] - [4]. 3 Chen Affidavit [24]. 4 Gregson Affidavit [3], 'CAG-01'; Chen Affidavit [28], [30]. 5 Chen Affidavit [6], [8]. 6 Wingenter Affidavit [4] - [5], 'NMW1'. See also 'NMW3' and 'NMW4'. These and all other references to the Wingenter Affidavit and the attachments to it are to that affidavit and the attachments, as translated in attachment 'AS3' to the Stuard Affidavit. 7 Wingenter Affidavit [6], 'NMW2'. -- 5 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 6 Affidavit.8 Also attached is a copy of a genealogical certificate and translation.9 19 In the first of those documents is an acknowledgment by Klaus-Dieter Münkel, Engineer, born on 23 June 1943 in Prenzlau, Germany that he is the father of the child named Nadine Margot Silla born in Mannheim-Neckarau and whose mother is Ortrud Wilhelmine Frieda Silla, neé Lepa. 20 The second of those documents records that a girl named Nadine Margot Silla was born in Mannheim-Neckarau on 8 July 1976 to Ortrud Wilhelmine Frieda Silla, neé Lepa. It also records that Nadine's father is the engineer, Klaus-Dieter Münkel, residing in Mannheim-Käfertal, born on 23 June 1943 in Prenzlau, who acknowledged paternity on 31 August 1976. It also records that Ortrud and her husband gave Nadine their married name, 'Borowski', with effect from 27 September 1979 and that Nadine married in 1998, when she took her current surname, Wingenter. 21 Nadine deposes that, other than when she was an infant, she did not meet her father in person as she believes her mother and father ended their relationship when Nadine was only a few months old.10 Up until her teenage years, Nadine had assumed that her father was her mother's husband, Wolfram Borowski, whose name her and her mother had taken. Nadine was never legally adopted by Wolfram.11 22 When Nadine was about 13 years old, she discovered that her father lived in Australia but did not take any steps at that time as she was young. Later, as an adult, Nadine searched for her father on the internet and, in April 2012, found a LinkedIn profile for Klaus Muenkel in Australia. Nadine made contact with Klaus and spoke to him by telephone and Skype and through email exchanges.12 23 In an email exchange between Klaus and Nadine in April 2012, Klaus said to Nadine that her brother, Jan, would be in Germany later that year and maybe they could meet.13 Nadine made arrangements to 8 Wingenter Affidavit [9], 'NMW3'. 9 Wingenter Affidavit [9], 'NMW4'. 10 Wingenter Affidavit [7] - [8]. 11 Wingenter Affidavit [10] - [11]. 12 Wingenter Affidavit [12] - [20], 'NMW5' - 'NMW8'. 13 Wingenter Affidavit [18], 'NMW6'. -- 6 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 7 meet Jan and met him during Jan's trip to Germany in about September 2012.14 24 Jan deposes that, in 2012, before he left Australia to travel to Germany to visit relatives, Klaus informed him that he believed he had a daughter in Germany, and Klaus asked Jan to meet with Nadine while he was in Germany. Jan met Nadine in September 2012. After that, he had minimal contact with her, and they never met again in person.15 25 Jan says that, in 2018, Klaus told him that he believed Nadine was not his daughter and, a few months later, Klaus asked Jan if he still maintained contact with Nadine. Jan said he did not. When Jan asked Klaus if he still had contact with Nadine, Klaus replied 'no'. That was the last time that Klaus spoke to Jan about Nadine.16 26 In the Chen Affidavit, Xi says that Klaus concealed his marriage to Rita from her and only told Xi about his first marriage to Jan's mother.17 She says that from the time she and Klaus met until he died, Klaus never told her that he had a daughter in Germany and she believes that if Klaus had a daughter he would have told her. Xi says that she has never seen any photographs of Klaus and Nadine during her relationship with Klaus.18 27 Klaus died on 15 February 2019. His death certificate records that his name is Klaus Dieter Muenkel, an engineer, born in Prenzlau, Germany on 23 June 1943.19 28 Following Klaus' death, a dispute arose between Ursula, Jan and Xi. On 8 September 2020, they attended a mediation, which resulted in Ursula, Jan and Xi entering into the Deed to resolve disputes between them in respect of a property owned by Ursula and Klaus as joint tenants and in relation to the administration and distribution of the Estate.20 It appears from the recitals to the Deed that: (a) Xi claimed that Klaus had told her he had made a will; (b) after Klaus' death no will could be found; 14 Wingenter Affidavit [21]. 15 Muenkel Affidavit [7] - [8]. 16 Muenkel Affidavit [9] - [11]. 17 Chen Affidavit [31]. 18 Chen Affidavit [33] - [35]. 19 Gregson Affidavit [3], 'CAG-01'; Muenkel Affidavit [12]. 20 Gregson Affidavit [4], 'CAG-02' (Deed). -- 7 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 8 (c) there was a dispute in relation to whether or not Klaus had left a will, as to the ownership and right to possession of a property at 35 Leach Avenue in Riverton (Property), which was registered as being owned by Klaus and Ursula as joint tenants, and whether the Property formed part of the Estate, amongst other things; (d) on 22 July 2019, Ursula and Jan commenced proceedings, Supreme Court of Western Australia action CIV 2287 of 2019, against Xi seeking a declaration that Klaus died intestate and other relief as referred to in the recitals to the Deed; (e) Xi acknowledged that Klaus died intestate, but otherwise defended the proceedings and filed a counterclaim; (f) no administrator had been appointed to the Estate and Jan had filed a probate caveat; and (g) Ursula, Jan and Xi agreed to settle and release each other from their respective claims without admission of liability on the terms and conditions set out in the Deed. 29 The recitals to the Deed also include a statement to the effect that there was only one child of Klaus' first marriage (to Ursula) and that there were no children of Klaus' second or third marriages (to Rita and Xi, respectively).21 30 Relevantly, by the Deed, it was agreed between Ursula, Jan and Xi: (a) by cl 1 and cl 2, that the Property pass by survivorship to Ursula, Xi would remove her caveat over the Property and deliver up the original duplicate Certificate of Title for the Property to Ursula; (b) by cl 3, that Klaus died intestate and that the Estate be administered according to the terms of the Deed and that Jan remove his probate caveat; (c) by cl 4: From the [Estate], the sum of $150,000 is to be held in a s 17A trust (section 17A of the Administration Act]1903 (WA) by [Xi] and by an independent accountant, as joint trustees, or by the 21 Deed recital 'D', page 1. -- 8 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 9 Public Trustee, for Chen Ya Xue (Erna) for her education and advancement in life until she reaches the age of 25 years, at which time the trust vests giving her the balance of the trust funds held on trust. The names of the accountant will be given to [Jan]'s solicitor prior to the establishment of the trust for his prior approval.22 (d) by cl 5: The remaining balance of the [Estate] (estimated at approximately $800,000) is to be divided equally between [Jan] and [Xi], save as set out below. (e) by cl 6, that each party bear their own costs of the action; (f) by cl 7, Xi is to provide an indemnity for the benefit of the Estate, Jan and Ursula against any claim made against the Estate, Jan or Ursula by Xi or any of her children, adopted children or dependants for provision from the Estate; (g) by cl 8, Xi and Jan agreed to appoint and to each pay one half of the costs of appointment of the Public Trustee to administer the Estate in accordance with the terms of the Deed; (h) by cl 9, Xi agreed to look for certain items personal to Jan and, if found, return them to Jan through his lawyer; (i) by cl 10, Klaus' vehicle be transferred to Jan; and (j) by cl 11, Xi released and discharged Jan from any claim arising from Xi's allegation that Jan had accessed Klaus' email account and Xi agreed to keep the allegation confidential and not make the allegation to any third party. 31 In the Muenkel Affidavit, Jan deposes that the Public Trustee was not willing to administer the Estate. After several attempts to contact Xi to find an alternative administrator, Jan applied for letters of administration of the Estate, which were granted to Jan on 28 March 2022.23 32 In January 2023, whilst going through Klaus' documentation for the purpose of administering the Estate, Jan found an email exchange from October 2018 between Klaus and Nadine, which appeared to Jan 22 It appears that Erna is a child or adopted child of Xi, but she was not Klaus' child. 23 Muenkel Affidavit [17] - [18]; Gregson Affidavit [5], 'CAG-03'. -- 9 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 10 to contradict Klaus' earlier comments about his lack of contact with Nadine, and Jan re-established contact with Nadine.24 33 In a telephone conversation between Jan and Nadine in January 2023, Nadine said to Jan that Klaus' name was on her birth certificate.25 On 14 February 2023, Jan contacted the Mannheim Standesamt (Birth Registry) and, using the letters of administration and Klaus' death certificate, obtained confirmation that Klaus had signed Nadine's birth certificate. A copy of Nadine's birth certificate was dispatched to him, and he received it in mid-March 2023.26 34 Attached to the Gregson Affidavit are copies of letters between the parties' lawyers,27 including a letter dated 17 November 2023 from Jan's lawyers, Gregson & Associates, to lawyers in Germany representing Nadine, in which they set out the background based on their instructions.28 Amongst other things, that letter states that Klaus was survived by Jan, Xi and Nadine. It says that, at some stage, Xi adopted a daughter, Erna, who turned 18 years in May 2023 and that, at no stage, did Klaus adopt Erna, and relays the terms of the Deed. 35 In a letter dated 22 December 2023 sent on behalf of Xi, Tan & Tan Lawyers stated, in effect, that Xi was sceptical that Nadine is Klaus' biological daughter and requested a DNA test to be carried out to confirm.29 36 On 4 June 2024, Cullen MacLeod, instructed by Nadine, wrote to Jan's and Xi's lawyers, referring to s 12A of the Administration Act and enclosing copies of Nadine's birth certificate issued on 24 February 2023, the other certificates and registration documents relating to Nadine's birth and the acknowledgment of parentage, together with copies of the exchanges of emails between Nadine and Klaus, now attached to the Wingenter Affidavit. The letter concluded by saying, in effect, that in light of the documents provided, there was no need for Estate funds to be expended on a DNA test or an application to the court for directions on the question of paternity, and asked each of them to confirm that their clients would proceed on the basis Nadine is Klaus' biological child for the purposes of intestacy.30 24 Muenkel Affidavit [19] - [20], 'JM-01' (also referred to as 'MU-1'). 25 Muenkel Affidavit [21]. 26 Muenkel Affidavit [22], 'JM-02', 'JM-03' (also referred to as 'MU-2' and 'MU-3'). 27 Gregson Affidavit [7] - [13], 'CAG-04' - 'CAG-10'. 28 Gregson Affidavit [7], 'CAG-04'. 29 Gregson Affidavit [8], 'CAG-05'. 30 Gregson Affidavit [10], 'CAG-07'. -- 10 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 11 37 No response was received from Xi's lawyers, despite follow up correspondence from Jan's and Nadine's lawyers,31 and the Application was filed. 38 Despite the evidence attached to the Wingenter Affidavit, as translated in the Stuard Affidavit, which were filed on 31 May 2025, Xi stated in the Chen Affidavit sworn and filed on 30 July 2025 that, in the absence of 'any independent or reliable evidence' of Nadine's paternity, she requested an order for DNA testing to determine whether Nadine is Klaus' biological child.32 39 In her submissions filed on 22 July 2026, shortly before the date originally set for the hearing of the Application, Xi acknowledges that in the Chen Affidavit she disputed whether Nadine was Klaus' biological child and says that, after considering the German birth records, certificate acknowledging paternity and correspondence said to have been sent by the deceased during his lifetime, and obtaining legal advice, she no longer disputes that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child and does not oppose a declaration being made to that effect. 40 Xi also says she understands that the court is being asked to decide whether the relevant provisions of the Deed are void because Nadine was not included as a party, as a child of Klaus, and says that if the court determines the Deed is ineffective and that the Estate must be distributed according to the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act, she will comply with that determination. 41 In her amended outline of submissions filed on 10 August 2026, Xi adds that she seeks to have certain provisions of the Deed cease to have effect. I address these and other matters raised in Xi's amended outline of submissions later in these reasons. Applicable principles - application for directions and declarations concerning administration of an estate Section 45 of the Administration Act 42 An administrator, executor or trustee is entitled to seek directions and judicial advice from the court in relation to any question arising in relation to any will or administration of an estate or in respect of property of an estate or trust. 31 Gregson Affidavit [11] - [13], 'CAG-08' - 'CAG-10'. 32 Chen Affidavit [36]. -- 11 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 12 43 The principles that apply to applications made under s 45 of the Administration Act are well established. It is not necessary that I repeat them in detail. 44 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. Section 45 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. (3) No final order for distribution shall be made except upon notice to all the parties interested, or as the Court may direct. 45 Section 45 of the Administration Act is expressed in broad and general terms. This is evident from the text which refers to 'any question arising in respect of any will or administration, or with reference to the distribution or application of any real or personal estate …'. In Pacella v Sherborne,33 Master Sanderson observed that phrase 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. 46 I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which the court's power to give directions and determine questions relating to the administration of the Estate is enlivened under s 45 of the Administration Act. The court also has power to determine the questions raised pursuant to RSC O 58 r 2(b) and r 2(g). 33 Pacella v Sherborne [2009] WASC 58 [12]. -- 12 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 13 Order 58 r 2 of the RSC 47 Relevantly, O 58 r 2 of the RSC provides: 2. Executors etc. seeking certain relief without administration The executors or administrators of a deceased person or any of them, and the trustees under any deed or instrument or any of them, and any person claiming to be interested in the relief sought as creditor, devisee, legatee or next of kin of a deceased person, or as cestui que trust under the trust of any deed or instrument, or as claiming by assignment or otherwise under any such creditor or other person as aforesaid, may take out, as of course, an originating summons returnable in chambers for such relief of the nature or kind following, as may by the summons be specified and as the circumstances of the case may require (that is to say) the determination, without an administration of the estate or trust, of any of the following questions or matters — … (b) the ascertainment of any class of creditors, legatees, devisees, next of kin, or others; … (g) the determination of any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust. The issues for determination 48 Central to the Application is whether Nadine is a lawful child of Klaus. Although there is no longer any dispute between the parties that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child, I must be satisfied it is appropriate to make a declaration to the effect sought. 49 If I am satisfied that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child, the other issue to be determined and in respect of which a declaration is sought is whether the Deed or any part of the Deed is voidable or should be set aside. 50 Nadine also proposes a direction be given that the Estate be administered in accordance with s 14 of the Administration Act. 51 There is also an issue between the parties in relation to the costs of the Application. The Administrator and Nadine each submit that Xi should be ordered to pay their costs of the Application. Xi submits that each party should bear their own costs of the Application. -- 13 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 14 52 Xi also refers in her submissions to other matters that are, as she acknowledges, unrelated to the Application, concerning the grant of letters of administration to the Administrator and matters relating to the administration of the Estate. Those matters are not the subject of this Application, or any other application presently before the court and do not arise for consideration or determination in this proceeding. 53 The issues for determination in the Application may be summarised as follows: 1. Is Nadine Klaus' lawful child? It is accepted that, if she is, Nadine is entitled in distribution under s 14 of the Administration Act. 2. If Nadine is Klaus' lawful child, should the Deed or any part of the Deed be declared voidable or be set aside? 3. What orders or declarations should be made? 4. What orders should be made in relation to costs? Is Nadine Klaus' lawful child? 54 Jan and Nadine each refer to and rely upon s 12A of the Administration Act, which provides: 12A. Entitlement to participation in distribution of intestate estates (1) Where, after the coming into operation of the Administration Act Amendment Act 1971, any person dies intestate as respects all or any of his property, for the purpose of determining who is entitled to participate in the distribution of that part of his estate to which the intestacy applies the relationship between a child and his parents shall be determined irrespective of whether the parents are or have been married to each other, and all other relationships, whether lineal or collateral, shall be determined accordingly. (2) In any proceedings where a person relies on a matter of fact made relevant by the provisions of subsection (1) — (a) that fact shall not be taken to be proved unless it is established to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court; and -- 14 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 15 (b) where the parents are not, or have not been, married to each other, the relationship between a child and his parent, and all other lineal or collateral relationships, shall be recognized only — (i) if parentage is admitted by or established against the parent in his lifetime; and (ii) where the purpose for which the relationship is to be determined enures for the benefit of the parent, if parentage has been so admitted or established in the lifetime of the child. … 55 In Sweeney v Castle,34 Master Sanderson accepted that s 12A embodies a two-stage process. The first stage, under s 12A(2)(b)(i) of the Administration Act, is establishing against a parent, that a particular person was their child. This stage may be satisfied either by a parent admitting parentage or parentage being established against the parent during their lifetime. If that first stage is fulfilled, then the second stage is establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that the person was in fact the child of the deceased parent. Master Sanderson observed that, in many cases, it may be there is no practical difference between the two stages. 56 I am satisfied on the evidence adduced in this case, as outlined, that the first stage of the test is satisfied. Although Klaus' surname as it appears in his death certificate and elsewhere is spelled slightly differently in Nadine's birth certificate and the other official documents, it is apparent that the person named in Nadine's birth certificate and the extract from her registration of birth, and who signed the certificate of paternity and obligation to provide maintenance, is Klaus. That is, Klaus Münkel and Klaus Muenkel is the same person, an engineer born on 23 June 1943 in Prenzlau, Germany. I infer that the change in spelling arose to anglicise Klaus' surname following his relocation to Australia. 34 Sweeney v Castle [2014] WASC 266 [28] - [29]; see also Riches v McInnes [2010] WASC 298 [19] - [20] (EM Heenan J), referred to in The Public Trustee (as Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey Stephen Alau) v The Public Trustee of Queensland (as Administrator of the Estate of Ellen Padal Pearson) [2011] WASC 321 [17] (Simmonds J). -- 15 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 16 57 The certificate of paternity and obligation to provide maintenance signed by Klaus and dated 31 August 1976, as translated, states 'I acknowledge that I am the father of the child Nadine Margot Silla July 08, 1976 born in Mannheim-Neckarau'.35 58 As set out earlier in these reasons, it is evident from the genealogical certificate issued by the German authorities36 that Nadine is the child referred to in the birth certificate and other documentation. The changes of Nadine's surname from Silla to Borowski to Wingenter are recorded in and explained by that certificate. 59 I do not consider it necessary for Klaus' parentage of Nadine to be verified by a DNA test. Nor is this pressed by Xi. It is clear from the documents, as outlined, that Klaus admitted parentage of Nadine during his lifetime. The fact that Klaus is Nadine's father is reinforced by the communications between Nadine and Klaus, during Klaus' lifetime and as recently as 2018, before Klaus died. 60 The fact that Klaus did not tell Xi that he had a daughter in Germany from a previous relationship is not determinative as to whether Klaus is Nadine's father. It is evident from the Chen Affidavit that there were things that Klaus concealed from and did not tell Xi about, including Klaus' second marriage to Rita. It does not follow that Klaus was not Nadine's father because he did not tell Xi about Nadine or because Xi did not see any photographs of Nadine, or of Nadine and Klaus. 61 For these reasons, it has been established to my reasonable satisfaction that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child. I am satisfied that a declaration should be made to that effect. Should the Deed or any part of the Deed be declared void or set aside? 62 Section 14(1) of the Administration Act provides that where a person dies intestate (without leaving a will) their property is to be distributed according to the entitlements set out in the Table in s 14. The Table sets out the entitlements in distribution depending on those who survived the deceased. Amongst other iterations it includes, relevantly, how an intestate estate is to be distributed where the deceased dies leaving a wife and children and the amount each is entitled to. 35 Wingenter Affidavit [9], 'NMW-3'. 36 Wingenter Affidavit [9], 'NMW-4'. -- 16 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 17 63 Having been declared a lawful child of Klaus, Nadine is entitled to share in the distribution of his Estate with Xi and Jan, as provided in s 14 of the Administration Act. 64 It is common ground that Nadine was not a party to the Deed or to the agreement reflected in certain provisions of the Deed which purport to vary the distribution of the Estate. 65 In the minute of proposed orders filed on behalf of the Administrator, it was proposed that a declaration be made that the Deed is voidable at the election of the first to third defendants, being Jan (in his personal capacity), Nadine and Xi. 66 The second defendant had proposed that the Deed be declared void ab initio but, at the hearing of the Application, joined in seeking the orders proposed by the Administrator. 67 Xi originally made no submissions on this issue other than to say that she understands the court is being asked to decide whether the Deed or its relevant provisions are void because Nadine was not included as a party to it. She said that if the court determines the Deed is ineffective and the Estate must be distributed according to the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act, she will comply with the court's determination. 68 In her amended outline of submissions, Xi added that, if the court determines that only parts of the Deed are ineffective, she seeks to have cl 1 of the Deed cease to have effect, such that the Property is not transferred to Ursula and instead forms part of the Estate to be distributed in accordance with the intestacy provisions of the Administration Act. Xi also sought to have cl 7 and cl 11 declared ineffective. Those clauses relate to the indemnity provided by her in respect of claims made against the Estate, Ursula or Jan by her or any of her children, adopted children or dependants for provision from the Estate and in relation to releasing and discharging Jan from a claim arising from her allegation that Jan had accessed Klaus' email account. 69 During the course of the hearing, issues arose in relation to the Deed and whether certain provisions of it have been performed. There was no evidence as to whether the Property had been transferred by survivorship to Ursula as provided by cl 1 of the Deed and there was uncertainty as to whether Nadine sought to have that provision of the Deed set aside, or just cll 3 - 5 concerning the distribution of the Estate. -- 17 of 18 -- [2026] WASC 340 MASTER RUSSELL Page 18 70 It became apparent that further instructions needed to be taken and further evidence filed in relation to the Deed, including as to the performance of its terms and the relief sought in respect of the Deed. 71 I made a declaration to the effect that Nadine is Klaus' lawful child and otherwise adjourned the Application to deal with the relief sought in relation to the Deed following further affidavits and submissions being filed on that issue. 72 Depending on the instructions given, the further evidence filed and the relief sought, if orders are sought in relation to cl 1 of the Deed concerning the Property that are likely to affect Ursula's rights or interests, consideration should be given as to whether Ursula should be joined as a party to the Application or, at the very least, have the right to be heard. 73 I will hear from the parties in relation to the costs of the Application once all of the issues have been heard. Conclusion and orders 74 For these reasons, I made a declaration in the following terms: It is declared that the second defendant, Nadine Margot Wingenter, is the lawful child of Klaus Dieter Muenkel, late of 35 Leach Avenue, Riverton, Western Australia, Engineer, who died intestate on 15 February 2019. 75 I also made orders for the filing of further affidavits, limited to further evidence in support of the relief sought in relation to the Deed, including as to performance of any parts of the Deed, and submissions in respect of the relief sought in relation to the Deed. Costs were reserved. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. SC Associate to Master Russell 17 AUGUST 2026 -- 18 of 18 --