Background
In the primary judgment, the Court held that the will of the late Ahileas Parastatidis was to be administered according to its terms. The residual estate was therefore to be divided equally among his three daughters, Yvonne Tarazi, Sophia Paras and Anastasia Ualesi, as tenants in common. The Court rejected the contention that the deceased had agreed or represented that Yvonne would be excluded in favour of Sophia and Anastasia.
The parties were directed to agree on consequential orders but remained in dispute over the independent administrator’s fees, liberty to apply, and costs. Sophia and Anastasia had also received rent from shops on the estate’s Ashbury property, requiring an account.
The Court’s Holding
Peden J appointed Gerard John Basha as independent administrator and granted him letters of administration with the will annexed. He may charge his usual professional rate of $750 plus GST per hour from the estate, including for necessary professional assistance. The Court found it was too late for Sophia and Anastasia to propose alternative administrators after the primary judgment and did not regard the proposed fees as excessive.
Sophia and Anastasia were ordered to account to the administrator, on a wilful-default basis, for rent received from the Ashbury property from the deceased’s death until the orders. They may seek a “just allowance” for expenses properly incurred improving the estate, but not unverified general outgoings. Liberty to apply was confined to the administrator. The defendants were ordered personally to pay Yvonne’s costs on the ordinary basis to 1 April 2026 and on an indemnity basis from 2 April 2026, without recourse to the estate, following their rejection of her offer of compromise.
Key Takeaways
- An entrenched family dispute can justify appointing an independent professional administrator.
- Beneficiaries who received estate rental income may be required to account on a wilful-default basis.
- A plaintiff whose offer of compromise produces an outcome no less favourable may obtain indemnity costs under the UCPR.
Why It Matters
The decision gives practical effect to the primary probate ruling while protecting the estate from further conflicted administration. It also demonstrates that parties who reject a clear and reasonable pre-trial compromise risk personal indemnity-cost exposure.