“Administrator cum testamento annexo de bonis non administratis” is a Latin legal term. It describes the person appointed by the Court to complete the administration of a deceased person’s estate. This occurs under specific conditions.
First, there must be a valid Will.
The original executor or administrator must have either died or become unable to complete the administration.
Finally, some of the estate remains unadministered.
The administrator steps in midway completing the administration of the estate according to the Will. This happens because the executor named in the Will is not capable of doing so.
Breakdown of the term:
- Administrator: A person legally appointed to manage and distribute an estate.
- Cum testamento annexo: Latin for “with the Will annexed.” This term means there is a Will.
- De bonis non administratis: Latin for “of goods not yet administered” — indicating part of the estate remains unsettled.
In plain terms, this administrator steps to handle the estate according to the Will. As the original person responsible either didn’t finish or couldn’t finish the job.
Slattery J in Callaway v Callaway; The Estate of Aileen Margaret Callaway [2019] NSWSC 1275 discussed the legal grounds on which a Court intervenes in a Willmaker’s appointment of an executor
“10. The Court will pass over a named executor where to appoint that executor would place the administration of the estate in jeopardy: Bates v Messner (1967) 67 SR (NSW) 187; (1967) 86 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 35. There are many established grounds for passing over an executor, including: bad character; attempts to delay the proper investigation of the deceased’s affairs; time wasting and neglected duties; conflicts of interest; extensive absences abroad; but, authority also suggests there are no limits to the grounds upon which the Court passed over an applicant as each case depends upon its facts and the Court’s overriding concern is promoting the orderly administration of the estate and the welfare and best interests of the beneficiaries: Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572; [1936] ALR 301; [1936] HCA 13.”
The Court’s main concern is the efficient administration of the estate. The administration must follow the terms of the Will. See Mavrideros v Mack (1998) 45 NSWLR 80 (at [107] and [108]); (1988) NSWCA 286.
“11. But a testator’s choice of a designated person as executor or co-executor is important and implies that the deceased reposed trust in him or her, and considers them to have been both suitable and capable of performing the duties required so such a person is not passed over lightly:
“The proper course in proceedings such as this is, in ordinary circumstances, to assume that a person named by a deceased person as his or her executor will act properly and that the testator expects that person will do so. The proper course is not to have some prior determination of proceedings which will properly arise in the administration of the estate of the deceased person. It is my view that the proceedings as constituted are bound to fail and ought to be dismissed.” Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust NSW v Millane [2002] NSWSC 1070, at 9.
The Court’s primary concern when handling disputes involving executors is to ensure that the estate is administered correctly. It strives for efficiency and prioritises the interests of the beneficiaries.
The Court appoints an administrator cum testamento annexo de bonis non administratis. This happens when the named executor in a Will is unable to complete the administration. The Court appoints a new person. This person is . They take over and finalise the administration of the estate.
In Estate of Nitopi (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1136, the Court took action concerning the original executor. The deceased’s widow was replaced with letters of administration with the Will annexed to the deceased’s son. This decision was mainly because the widow had no financial interest in the estate’s administration. Additionally, there was evidence suggesting she faced criminal charges, which influenced the Court’s decision. However, Justice Parked noted at [11],
“….An order removing a person as executor is not necessarily a condemnation of that person’s character or abilities in that office.”
Fairness is the main rule for deciding on a grant to a particular applicant. Proper administration of the estate is crucial. This is especially important when there are competing applicants. The interests of the parties beneficially entitled are also considered. Within these limits, applicants for a grant of administration with the Will annexed have a priority. Their priority follows that of applicants for a grant of letters of administration upon total intestacy. Priority rights are given to those entitled to the most significant interest in the estate.
A Court issues this grant when it believes the legal personal representative has disappeared. This also applies if they are presumed dead. Refer to: In Goods of Kempe (1853) 17 Jur 240. Also consider In the Estate of Saker [1909] P 233. Another relevant case is In the Estate of French [1910] P 169. Some of the estate must be left unadministered: In the Will of Martin (dec’d) [1912] VLR 206.
The Matter
The Estate of Hugh Brown Craig [2025] NTSC 41 concerns an extraordinary tale that spans continents and centuries. The purpose was to finish the administration of Hugh Brown Craig’s estate, who died in England in 1885. The case vividly illustrates the enduring relevance of historical wills. It shows the intellectual challenge and satisfaction of tracing heirs. It also highlights the crucial role of modern probate genealogists in unlocking dormant inheritances.
The Background
Tessa Ruth Abrams applied for Letters of Administration de bonis non administratis. This grant is used when part of an estate remains unadministered. This situation occurs after the original executor has died or failed to complete the administration. Her application sought to administer the unadministered portion of Mr Craig’s estate. The local council sold a parcel of land in Southport, Northern Territory. It is known as Lot 178. The sale was due to unpaid rates. This sale left approximately $69,000 in surplus funds. The Public Trustee, who acts as a custodian of these funds, holds these funds.
A legal representative for the deceased’s estate was required to release the funds.
The Probate Genealogist
Key to the case was the evidence of Carolyn Felgate, a probate genealogist from Anglia Research Services in the UK. Felgate’s research revealed three essential facts about Mr Craig. He was born in 1831. He died in 1885. He had executed a valid Will before his death. Probate was granted in England in 1886 to his wife, Helen Beete Lloyd Craig, and another executor, James Sinclair. Yet, after both executors died—Mrs Craig in 1913, intestate—the estate was left partly unadministered, notably the Southport property.
Felgate’s skill and genealogical efforts traced Mr Craig’s living descendants. They confirmed that Tessa Ruth Abrams was his great-granddaughter. This makes her one of the nearest surviving relatives. She is a suitable person to finalise the estate.
The Will
The Will in question, dated 22 April 1885, was not the original document. It was a hand-transcribed copy sourced from the UK probate registry. It referred to a Marriage Settlement, a common Victorian-era legal mechanism used to create lifetime trusts for married couples. It also included provisions for their children. The applicant was incapable of locating the original trust documents. But the Court was satisfied that the Will established a testamentary trust. It included the Southport land as part of Mr Craig’s estate.
Despite the copy of the Will lacking original signatures, the Court was willing to accept it as authentic. In the UK, the Will had been admitted to probate, which rebutted any presumption of revocation.
The Outcome
Justice Grant accepted that:
- The Southport land formed part of Mr Craig’s unadministered estate.
- No chain of representation remained because the last executor died intestate.
- Ms Abrams was the deceased’s next of kin and had made diligent efforts to seek administration.
- The Northern Territory Supreme Court accepted a copy of the 1885 Will.
- It granted Letters of Administration cum testamento annexo, de bonis non administratis, to Tessa Ruth Abrams.
- Payment of legal costs from the estate.
Why This Case Matters
This case serves as a potent reminder of the significance of genealogical research in probate matters. It also highlights the enduring legal validity of properly executed historical wills, which hold legal weight even when they are over a century old. Additionally, it emphasises the crucial role of probate genealogists, who are essential in preserving and interpreting legal history.
A fascinating intersection of legal history, family lineage, and modern succession law.It serves as a true testament to the adage:
‘ What’s past is prologue. ‘