An essential question in estate administration: can the Court authorise an interim distribution to beneficiaries before the whole administration of the estate? In The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335, the issue arises in the context of long-delayed entitlements under a March 2021 settlement, where beneficiaries have already waited years for the distribution of the deceased estate.
Sitting at the intersection of prudence and fairness, interim distributions are not routine and require courts and executors to balance the risk of future claims against the injustice of continued delay. The legal starting point is well-established authority on when a personal representative may — and sometimes must — distribute estate assets even though administration is incomplete.
Campbell J articulated those principles in Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508; 58 NSWLR 188, an appeal was dismissed (see Gonzales v Claridades (2003) 58 NSWLR 211; [2003] NSWCA 227). The plaintiff, the son of the deceased, faced charges of murdering his father, mother, and sister. As the sole beneficiary of his parents’ joint Will, he sought access to estate funds. The estate’s administration was still ongoing.
The key question was whether the son could access estate funds to defend himself in committal proceedings and if the Court had authority under Part 68 of the SCR (now Part 54 UCPR) to issue such orders in an emergency.
The Court found it had no power to direct the executrix to release estate funds to cover defence costs for a beneficiary accused of murdering his family members, explaining the times an executor can safely make partial payments despite unresolved matters such as costs, claims, or litigation. At its core, the analysis turns on three practical questions:
Can the distribution be made consistently with the governing instrument? Is there no real risk of claw-back later, and
Are the remaining tasks unlikely to be resolved anytime soon?
Against that backdrop, The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335, presents a compelling factual context. The beneficiaries have already received only limited funds, mainly due to misconduct by the former administrator, with the estate’s remaining administration prolonged by potential recovery litigation. Slattery J considers whether fairness now requires early access to funds — even before formally appointing a new administrator — and how to structure such a distribution to protect both beneficiaries and the estate.
This post explores the principles governing interim distributions, how courts apply them in practice, and why, in exceptional cases, delay itself can become the injustice the law seeks to prevent.
Souad Shoushani died in 2016. Between 2017 and 2018, three of her children—George, Robert and Tony—commenced proceedings relating to her estate. To avoid confusion, the Court adopted the parties’ own practice of referring to family members by their first names.
The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335 comprised three related matters.
First, George and Robert brought family provision claims against their sister, Camellia, the Court-appointed estate administrator. The estate then pursued proceedings. They sought declarations that Robert held specific real property registered in his name on trust for the estate. Additionally, Tony brought his own family provision claim.
George and Robert were under a legal disability. Thus, settlement of their proceedings required Court approval. This was necessary under s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The Court’s role in approving these settlements ensures procedural compliance and legal validity. This is critical for estate administration. It also boosts beneficiary confidence.
At that time, the expected value of the net estate was $1.6 million after the sale of estate properties. The Court noted that a contested eight-day hearing would have consumed a large share of the estate’s legal costs. This would leave significantly less available for distribution. The settlement, by contrast, provided certainty. It preserved value. This outcome emphasised the importance of legal principles guiding interim distributions for the audience’s confidence.
Under the settlement, significant distributions to George, Robert, Tony, two other siblings, and Camellia. Camellia was to continue as administrator, a role she had already performed as administrator pendente lite, assisted by solicitors. No party sought her removal. Her role was primarily administrative. She distributed funds, including payments to the NSW Trustee and Guardian (NSWTAG). These funds were to be held on trust for George and Robert.
The settlement orders were detailed and interconnected. They provided for the recovery and sale of real property held by Robert on trust for the estate. They appointed trustees for sale. They also directed how the sale proceeds were to be applied. After meeting liabilities, George and Robert’s settlements were held on statutory trusts. These trusts were established under ss 59 and 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Other beneficiaries were authorised to get their shares directly from the administrator. The orders also granted all parties liberty to apply for information on the sale of properties. They allowed applications about the distribution of proceeds.
Trust arrangements were created in parallel for George and Robert. The NSWTAG was given broad discretionary powers to apply income or capital for their advantage. These arrangements include defined vesting events. Separate orders, including limits on the estate costs and authorisation of distributions to Camellia and another sibling, Maroun.
The settlement orders explicitly established trust arrangements for George and Robert. They conferred broad discretionary powers on the NSWTAG. The orders detailed vesting events, providing a clear legal foundation for estate management. They addressed questions about the validity and scope of these trusts.
After the Court approved the settlement, the executor sold the properties and paid the proceeds to the estate. Camellia continued, for a time, to get advice from the estate’s solicitors. Yet, the duration of that assistance later became unclear. By mid-2023, beneficiaries began seeking explanations when they had not received the anticipated distributions. Inquiries led by George’s solicitor revealed matters that caused significant concern. These matters distressed all beneficiaries. The inquiries highlighted unresolved legal issues and procedural steps taken thus far.
The Course of Estate Administration and Beneficiary Enquiries (2021–2024)
The estate comprised three adjoining residential properties at Greenacre. One property was sold before the settlement proceedings in July 2019 for $780,000. After the Court-approved settlement in March 2021, the administrator sold the remaining two properties after Robert vacated them, realising $2.48 million. After deducting trustees’ and legal expenses, total net proceeds paid to the estate amounted to $2,757,805.45. The administrator completed the sales process by February 2022. At that time, the trustees for sale transferred the final proceeds into the estate solicitors’ account.
Under the settlement, the estate’s solicitors’ fees were capped at $20,000, apparently to preserve certainty about beneficiary entitlements. Concerns were later raised on George’s behalf. He sought an inquiry into the solicitor’s conduct. Nevertheless, the Court deferred that step pending further information.
Shortly after settlement approval, the estate’s solicitors arranged for Camellia Tadros, as administrator, to open a separate estate bank account. To manage estate funds directly. She opened a Commonwealth Bank account. She received a first transfer of approximately $60,870 in April 2021. This was followed by a further transfer of nearly $2 million in February 2022, after she completed the property sales. From that point, the estate funds were under her sole control. The lack of clear communication about this transfer and the ensuing delays raised concerns. These concerns were about potential misconduct. It is a critical consideration for the audience.
Inquiries confirmed that the estate’s proceeds exceeded estimates, yet delays and unclear accounting caused significant distress among beneficiaries. Transparency and proper conduct in estate management are crucial. They help keep trust and confidence among legal practitioners and beneficiaries alike.
By late 2022, the accountants advised that they had completed and submitted the estate accounts and tax returns. They informed the administrator that they had paid the tax. A small refund was received in early 2023. At that point, George’s solicitor formally sought a breakdown of distribution calculations. The goal was to reconcile them with the 2021 orders and known sale proceeds. George received none despite ongoing correspondence over the following year.
Inquiries confirmed that the estate’s proceeds exceeded estimates. Delays and unclear accounting caused significant distress among beneficiaries. This underscores the importance of transparency and proper conduct. It includes adherence to legal standards for misconduct or misappropriation under applicable law.
By early 2024, inquiries intensified. The trustees for sale confirmed the transfer of all funds to the estate’s solicitors. In April 2021, the estate solicitors disclosed that they had transferred all trust funds to Ms Tadros. They were also awaiting information from her. Both the solicitors and the accountants stated they couldn’t obtain bank statements or financial records from Ms Tadros.
By April 2024, George’s solicitor suspected that Ms Tadros had misappropriated estate funds. Ms Tadros provided only limited and inconsistent information. She included outdated screenshots of the estate bank account. These screenshots showed a balance far below expectations. She did not offer bank statements or a current balance. Her explanations were contradictory and unsatisfactory. She refused to reveal further documents. She asserted—incorrectly—that such disclosure was a matter for the accountants.
Ms Tadros ignored repeated follow-ups, eventually instructing the estate’s accountants to cease acting and declining further engagement. There was no meaningful response. George’s solicitor invoked the liberty to apply under the 2021 settlement. The matter was re-listed in June 2024.
At the first return date, the Court instantly froze Ms Tadros’ accounts, including the estate bank account. When examined in July 2024, Ms Tadros admitted that only about $10,000 remained in the estate account. She admitted that she had transferred approximately $90,000 to her personal account. Under examination (with a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)), she admitted misappropriating approximately $1.14 million of estate funds after payment of estate expenses. She admitted to using estate funds for personal purposes. She stated she believed she was entitled to them as administrator. Candidly, she admitted that she “wanted” the money, despite knowing her conduct was wrong.
The evidence showed that she used estate funds for personal living expenses. She also spent them on entertainment, gambling, legal costs, and gifts to family members. She transferred funds in small amounts. Often, these transfers were made via PayID. Sometimes, she used third-party accounts. This behaviour is consistent with an intention to conceal the movement and destination of funds. In some cases, other family members withdrew cash on her behalf or spent funds with her approval.
These disclosures led to the joinder of extra defendants who had received estate funds. The Court refrained from detailing those transactions at this stage, noting issues of representation, relevance, and proportionality.
Interim Distribution – Issue Raised
George’s submissions raise the question. Should the Court now authorise an interim distribution to him and the other plaintiffs? They are entitled under the March 2021 settlement. This is despite the estate administration not being finished.
Interim distribution raises particular difficulties in this case, requiring careful application of established principles.
Legal Principles Governing Interim Distributions
The legal principles come from Gonzales v Claridades (2003) 58 NSWLR 188. Campbell J explained that a legal personal representative make interim distributions before completing administration. In some cases, they must make these distributions.
The Court orders interim distribution under certain conditions.
First, a Will, intestacy, or settlement clearly establishes some entitlements.
Second, there is no realistic prospect of needing to reduce the distribution later.
Finally, the remaining administrative tasks are unlikely to be completed soon.
Unresolved matters, including family provision claims, creditor issues, or litigation, do not automatically justify withholding all distributions. Executors should take a cautious approach. It should also be practical; seeking consent from affected parties or directions from the Court. This can protect the executor from liability.
Courts have also approved partial distributions where the entitlement is clear and undisputed, and where unresolved aspects of administration persist.
Framework for Decision
The Court applied the framework from Gonzales v Claridades. It identified three key questions:
- Can distributions be made under the governing instrument?
- is there no realistic prospect that those distributions will be affected by unresolved administration issues?
- Are the remaining administrative tasks unlikely to be completed soon?
- If answered affirmatively, an interim distribution is appropriate or required.
- Application to The Estate of Shoushani. It is Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335
(a) Governing Instrument
The March 2021 settlement governs the beneficiaries’ entitlements. It clearly sets out the apportionment of the distributions.
The Court holds all estate funds. Any interim distribution must have a Court order. It should follow the proportions fixed by the settlement, unless otherwise agreed.
(b) Outstanding Administration Issues
Ms Tadros’ original duties were limited to accounting for and distributing the proceeds of sale. Nonetheless, her admitted misconduct has expanded the scope of administration.
Any replacement administrator pendente lite will need to consider whether to pursue further asset recovery litigation. That decision will depend on:
- legal advice;
- prospects of success; and
- the beneficiaries’ willingness to assume financial risk.
The timing and cost of any further litigation are uncertain. Given the limited funds remaining, any interim distribution reduce the estate’s capacity to fund future recovery proceedings.
(c) Creditors and Costs
George is the estate’s only clearly identified substantial future creditor. He has already conferred a significant benefit on the estate. This was done by authorising the Court’s investigations, resulting in a formal costs order in his favour.
Former estate solicitors also assert creditor claims beyond the $20,000 fee cap in the settlement. The estate will give notice and an opportunity to quantify and resolve any such claims. This will occur before finalising any interim distribution provided.
Role of Agreement
The Court emphasised the importance of that agreement among beneficiaries and creditors. It can significantly reduce uncertainty. An interim distribution then become possible.
There are a few options. One is agreeing that the parties will not pursue further litigation. Alternatively, the parties can agree that any future litigation will be funded externally (for example, by legal credit).
Beneficiaries have options to consider.
Gaining a larger interim distribution. This choice means they accept reduced litigation capacity. Alternatively, they can opt for a smaller interim distribution. This keeps funds preserved for future recovery. Provided this balancing exercise is transparent and broadly agreed, the Court is likely to accommodate an interim distribution.
Court Authorisation and Protection
The Court will expressly authorise a Court order to protect the administrator from personal liability. If an administrator pendente lite is appointed, they distribute funds under Court authority. This action protects them from creditor claims, consistent with established authority.
Special Considerations: Incapacitated Beneficiaries
George and Robert are legally incapacitated and have a more immediate need for funds.
The Court consider varying existing orders. Some funds are paid directly to them rather than through the NSW Trustee and Guardian. This is possible if there is a supply of limited evidence of need and assurance of responsible use of funds.
Nonetheless, the Court is cautious about departing from the existing protective structure.
Proposed Distributions and Next Steps
GDA Lawyers proposed specific interim distributions to the beneficiaries. They allocated a reduced amount to legal costs compared to the amount authorised by the Court.
Once final figures are agreed, the Court can make final interim distribution orders, in chambers or by short appearance.
Law Reform and Supervisory Jurisdiction
Law Reform Referral
The Court intends to refer the matter to the Law Society of NSW. If necessary, it will also refer to the Attorney-General. This is to consider law reform aimed at preventing estates from being administered by unsupervised sole administrators. This situation arises after the withdrawal of legal practitioners. A proposed reform needs outgoing estate solicitors to inform beneficiaries before terminating their retainer. This is required when no replacement lawyer is engaged.
Supervisory Jurisdiction over Solicitors
George’s counsel requested that the Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the estate’s solicitors. The Court declined to resolve this issue now. The solicitors were not on notice. There was insufficient available evidence. Instead, the Court instructed the estate’s solicitors. They must file an affidavit. It should explain their involvement in the estate administration after the March 2021 settlement.
Other Matters
Potential Further Recoveries
It is too early to decide whether further recoveries should be pursued. This includes possible claims against third parties including a bank. Any such action needs independent legal advice and assessment of constructive notice and breach of trust principles.
Criminal Referrals
Although the Court made no criminal findings, it concluded that the evidence raised sufficient concern. This justified referral of the matter to the NSW Attorney-General for consideration of potential criminal offences. The referral does not imply guilt but recognises that the facts warrant further investigation.
Orders Made
The Court made several decisions. It referred the matter to the Attorney-General. It also referred law reform issues to the Law Society. The Court ordered Ms. Tadros to account and to show cause. It authorized payment of legal costs to GDA Lawyers. The matter was listed for further directions. Additionally, it granted liberty to apply.
The matter was referred to the Attorney-General. Law reform issues were referred to the Law Society. Ms. Tadros was ordered to account and to show cause. The payment of legal costs to GDA Lawyers was authorized; the matter was listed for further directions. Liberty to apply was granted.
Camelia Tadros, Alan Knock, Victor Tadros, Rita Shimon, Cassandra Tadros, and Toni-Lee McCaw referred the matter to the Attorney General. They requested further investigation. Funds were released out of Court to Ghania Dib, of GDA Lawyers. These funds cover disbursements and fees incurred. This is a partial compensation for legal work performed to recover the deceased’s outstanding estate assets.