Removing a Professional Trustee as Executor in Queensland

When a loved one passes away, the appointment of an executor or administrator to manage their estate can be a deeply personal and emotional issue.

There are a number of valid reasons why a loved one might have appointed a professional trustee company as executor at a time in their lives when their last Will was made. Despite this, the appointment of professional executor, such as the Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd or the Public Trustee often comes as a surprise to family members, especially when the passage of time has rendered their appointment no longer practical, suitable or cost effective.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Re Morgan (deceased) [2025] QSC 258 shows how a family member can successfully apply to have a new executor or administrator appointed when circumstances have changed.

THE FACTS OF RE MORGAN

Mr Leslie Morgan passed away in February 2025, leaving a Will made in 1971. His Will appointed Queensland Trustees Limited (now known as Perpetual Trustee Company Limited) as executor, and left his entire estate to his wife, Mrs Doreen Morgan.

By the time of Mr Morgan’s death, Mrs Morgan was elderly and did not wish to manage the estate herself. The estate was modest — consisting mainly of a bank account of around $100,000. Both Mrs Morgan and the Morgans’ son, Bradley, renounced their right to administer the estate. Their daughter, Kerina, then applied to the Supreme Court for letters of administration with the Will, effectively stepping in to handle her father’s estate.

Justice Davis granted the application, allowing Kerina to administer the estate instead of the Trustee company.

WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO REMOVE A PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEE?

There are several reasons why families may want to remove a professional trustee as executor:

• High fees: Public or corporate trustees often charge significant fees for even modest estates.
• Delay: Administration can be slow, especially for smaller or straightforward estates.
• Lack of personal understanding: A public officer or trustee company may not understand family relationships or the deceased’s wishes as well as a family member.
• Change in circumstances: The person originally named in the Will may no longer be available, appropriate, or willing to act.

In Mr Morgan’s case, and indeed in most cases, a professional trustee will be willing to renounce its role, allowing the Court to appoint a family member who could handle the estate more personally and efficiently.

In Queensland, an application to remove or replace an executor (thereby appointing a new administrator) is made to the Supreme Court under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”), particularly r 603. Regulation 603 is referred to as the Priority Rule for letters of administration.

The Court looks at factors such as:

• Who is entitled to administer the estate under the Will;
• Whether those with a higher priority (such as a trustee company or beneficiary) have renounced their right; and
• Whether the proposed administrator is suitable and has the consent of other interested parties.

In Re Morgan, the application was straightforward: everyone agreed that Kerina should act, and the estate was simple. Importantly, the matter was determined without an oral hearing as it was unopposed, making the process faster and more cost-effective.

HOW WE CAN HELP

At Rostron Carlyle Lawyers, we help clients apply to remove or replace a corporate executor and take control of the estate themselves. Our experienced probate lawyers can:

• Prepare the necessary application to the Supreme Court;
• Obtain consents or renunciations from other interested family members;
• Ensure the matter proceeds without an oral hearing where possible — saving you time and money; and
• Support you through the administration process once you’re appointed.

If the current executor is managing your loved one’s estate and you believe a family member could handle it more efficiently, contact Michael Sing in our Wills and Estates Team for advice on your options.

The blog published by Rostron Carlyle is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the blog posts, the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the blog published. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult Rostron Carlyle on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.