In Sofianidis v Hill [2025] NSWSC 37, Slattery J stated the judgment serves as the final warning to Lisa Araluen Hill (the defendant) before the Court takes more decisive measures to compel her participation. The defendant has consistently refused to engage with the legal proceedings in this case. Her continued avoidance prevents a fair resolution, and the Court warns that further inaction will lead to more severe consequences.
The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters and the only children of the late Helen Brien Clare Hill (the deceased), who passed away on 8 July 2021. The deceased’s Will, dated 9 March 2006, appointed both daughters as joint executors, assuming they would cooperate in administering the estate.
Apart from a small charitable donation, the deceased left her estate valued at $4.165 million, equal to both daughters’. The main assets are a house in Cremorne worth $3.9 million, (the property) furniture, bank account funds, and other investments. Probate was granted to both sisters on 26 April 2022.
Since then, for reasons unknown, the defendant has refused to cooperate in administering the estate. The plaintiff, Ms. Sofianidis, has made repeated efforts politely and reasonably to engage her sister, but the defendant has ignored these attempts, causing delays and obstructions.
The defendant has lived in the property since their mother’s death, delaying the estate administration for over three years, which is unacceptable and contrary to the Court’s duty under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to ensure the efficient resolution of cases. By preventing the sale or distribution of assets, the defendant has unfairly denied the plaintiff access to her rightful share of the estate.
In probate matters, the Court ensures that estates are administered without unnecessary expense or delay so beneficiaries can use their inheritance as intended. The defendant’s refusal to cooperate led the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings on 22 March 2023, seeking her removal as co-executor so the plaintiff could take sole responsibility for the estate.
Due to the estate’s deadlock, Lindsay J revoked the original grant of probate on 22 July 2023. On 6 October 2023, the plaintiff applied for an independent administrator. Initially, she sought an appointment herself but later requested a neutral party.
On 29 December 2023, Ms Tamara Jane Goodwin, an experienced probate practitioner, was appointed independent administrator of the estate cum testament annexo. The Administrator attempted to engage the defendant and persuade her to vacate the property for its sale but, like the plaintiff, faced complete non-cooperation.
Finding no alternative, the Administrator sought Court approval in October 2024 to commence possession proceedings. On 31 October 2024, the Court ruled that the administrator was justified in seeking exclusive possession of the property.
The Court permitted the administrator to file a Cross-Claim for possession, which she did on 12 December 2024. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 20 December 2024, and a process server at the property served the defendant.
The defendant failed to appear at the 20 December hearing, leading the Court to order the re-service of documents and schedule a new hearing for 7 February 2025. The Court is satisfied that the defendant was served correctly but has ignored the proceedings.
The defendant has breached the Court’s order by failing to attend the 7 February hearing as ordered. Although the Court explicitly warned the defendants of potential penalties for non-compliance, she has continued to disregard the legal process.
The evidence shows that the defendant deliberately ignores the Court’s order to remain in the Cremorne property. Allowing this to continue would undermine the Court’s authority and unfairly disadvantage the plaintiff. This situation cannot persist.
The Court gives the defendant one final opportunity to comply before taking decisive action. The Court recognises that her persistent non-engagement is challenging to understand, but it will not tolerate further disregard for its authority.
Slattery J delivered the judgment orally, and the court published it for formal service with the hope that someone close to the defendant would discuss it with her, allowing her to reconsider her position before the court took coercive actions.
The Court has two options moving forward:
- 1. Enter judgment for possession and issue a writ to remove the defendant from the property.
- 2. A warrant for the defendant’s arrest under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 97 must be issued to bring her before the court.
The Court has chosen the second option. Simply ordering possession may lead to unnecessary hardship for the defendant, as the Sheriff would forcibly remove her from the property without time to prepare. She may attempt to delay the process further, creating a chaotic situation.
Since the defendant appears emotionally attached to the property, it is preferable that she either vacates voluntarily or works within a structured timetable. Issuing a warrant for her arrest will require her to attend Court but will not immediately remove her from the property, providing an opportunity for direct engagement with the Court. If she continues to refuse cooperation, the Court can immediately issue a possession order to minimise further delay.
If the defendant is arrested, the court will arrange for pro bono legal assistance. It is hoped that her previous solicitor, Mr Peter Ellis, will persuade her to comply.
Although being compelled to attend Court may be difficult for the defendant, it is a necessary step to prevent a more distressing scenario in which she is suddenly removed from the property. This approach allows her to make informed decisions about her future, whether it involves leaving the property or negotiating to acquire it.
The Court makes the following orders:
- 1. The proceedings are adjourned to the probate motions list on 21 February 2025.
- 2. The cross-claimant must serve the defendant with this judgment and accompanying orders by email and at the Cremorne property by 11 February 2025.
- 3. Ms. Goodwin and the plaintiff must provide a copy of these orders to Mr. Ellis by 11 February 2025 and request that he contact the defendant.
- 4. The defendant is ordered to appear in Court on 21 February 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
- 5. If the defendant fails to appear, the Court intends to issue a warrant for her arrest and require her to appear in Court on 28 February 2025.
- 6. The plaintiff and Mr. Ellis are encouraged to inform anyone who can bring this judgment to the defendant’s attention.
The Court’s approach ensures that justice is done reasonably and efficiently while giving the defendant a final opportunity to comply before more forceful action is taken.