The Estate of Jian Ming Li [2025] NSWSC 907 closed the door on an attempt to reopen a resolved estate dispute — involving family tensions, contested paternity, a criminal conviction for interfering with a corpse, and a preserved piece of human tissue.
Procedural History: The Battle Over Paternity
After Jian Ming Li died intestate in early March 2022, his son, Cheng Zhang Li, applied for letters of administration as the sole child and senior next of kin. Jian Zhong Li, the deceased’s older brother, acting on behalf of their elderly mother Quin Ying Liu, contested the application, submitting that Cheng was not the deceased’s biological son.
The paternity issue had been simmering during the deceased’s lifetime. In 2023, during proceedings before the Court, Jian sought to compel Cheng to undergo DNA testing. Cheng eventually agreed, but based on “avuncular” testing (using DNA from relatives, not the deceased himself) and testing samples from Jian, Quin, and Jian’s son,
The results were decisive: there was a 99.9% probability that Cheng was related to Jian and Quin, confirming Cheng’s status as the deceased’s son. On 23 October 2023, the Court formally declared Cheng under the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) and granted Cheng letters of administration under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The case file was closed in December 2023, with no appeal lodged.
The Extraction of the Illegally Obtained Body Tissue
While the 2023 case was underway, another story was unfolding in secret. Days before the deceased’s funeral in March 2022, Jian — convinced Cheng was not his brother’s son — took matters into his own hands.
Arriving early at the funeral home with his son, Jian secretly unlocked the coffin, unzipped the body bag, and used metal pliers to cut a section of the deceased’s ear. He did this without consent from Cheng, recognised under the Human Tissue Act 1983 (NSW).
The act went undetected at the funeral. The tissue was stored in Jian’s freezer for over a year until, in June 2023, he disclosed his actions to the funeral director, who informed Cheng and the police.
Police executed a search warrant, seized two jars containing ear tissue, and questioned Jian. He made full admissions and was charged under s 81C(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) with improperly interfering with a corpse. In October 2023 — just three days after the paternity judgment — Jian was convicted and fined $1,500.
The 2025 Motion and the Subpoena Issue
In May 2025, Jian and Quin returned to court seeking orders to release the seized ear tissue for DNA testing. Jian said this would prove further family relationships and potentially assist Quin in making maintenance claims against the estate.
However, the Court noted:
- The finalisation of the estate dispute occurred in 2023. The time for appeal had long passed.
- The never-disputed relationship between Quin, Jian, and the deceased.
- Earlier DNA testing had already resolved Cheng’s paternity with near certainty.
Jian sought leave as an unrepresented litigant to issue a subpoena to NSW Police for the tissue under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Court refused leave, finding there was no legitimate forensic purpose — the proceedings were over, and the evidence would likely be inadmissible under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) due to how Jian obtained it.
Slattery J described Jian’s actions as “a gross and disrespectful infringement of the dignity of the deceased’s body” and stressed that the law cannot condone illegal conduct to obtain evidence for private disputes.
The Alternative Relief: Creditor Claim
In the alternative, Jian asked the Court to order payment of $129,073 from the estate, claiming he was owed this sum as a creditor. Submitted ad hoc bank statements but provided no coherent evidence of a debt.
The Court made no further orders on the creditor issue. Finding:
- An interlocutory motion was not the right vehicle to decide a debt claim.
- A plaintiff should make such claims via a formal originating application during estate administration.
The Decision
The Court dismissed the motion, refused to order production of the ear tissue, and ordered Jian and Quin to pay Cheng’s legal costs.
Final Word:
This case is a stark reminder that reopening an estate dispute is a steep uphill battle once resolved by court order, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. It’s also a cautionary tale of how personal convictions, if pursued outside the law, can lead not to vindication but to criminal conviction and costs orders.