In The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335, the Court illustrated its readiness to intervene when estate administrators misuse their position. It steps in to correct the misapplication of estate funds. Slattery J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales addressed serious maladministration by an estate administrator.

Background

After the death of Souad Shoushani in 2016, three of her sons—George, Robert and Tony—started legal proceedings. They filed under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) for further provision from her estate. Some plaintiffs were under a legal disability and needed the Court’s protection. In March 2021, the Court approved a settlement, awarding the siblings a joint entitlement of about $1.9 million. George and Robert filed claims against their sister, Camellia Tadros as administrator of the estate. Meanwhile, the estate sought declarations about certain real property held in Robert’s name. It was claimed to be beneficially owned by the estate. Tony also brought his own family provision claim.

A global settlement resolved the proceedings. The Supreme Court of New South Wales approved it on 8 March 2021. This approval was in The Estate of Souad Shoushani [2021] NSWSC 194. Court approval was required because George and Robert were under a legal disability. The Court accepted the settlement after receiving detailed evidence and advice. The Court noted that a contested eight-day hearing would have significantly reduced the estate through legal costs.

At the time, the estate was expected to have a net value of about $1.6 million once certain real properties were sold. The settlement provided for significant distributions to the siblings. Importantly, shares allocated to George and Robert were to be held on trust. They were paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian. Tony and other beneficiaries were to get their entitlements directly.

The orders also required the recovery of real property held in Robert’s name. This property was declared to be held on trust for the estate. Trustees for sale were appointed, and the net proceeds were to be distributed according to the agreed settlement proportions. The orders allowed the parties to apply to the Court. Manage issues related to the sale of the properties and distribution of the proceeds.

Camellia Tadros remained administrator after The Estate of Souad Shoushani [2021] NSWSC 194. She was expected to finalise the administration by accounting for the sale proceeds. This included paying estate liabilities and distributing the remaining funds according to the orders. Nevertheless, by mid-2023 the expected distributions had not been made. Prompting increasing inquiries from the beneficiaries and their solicitors. There were particularly inquiries on behalf of George.

Between 2021 and 2024, the beneficiaries received little information from the administrator. Their sister Camellia Tadros provided limited details about the delay in distributing the settlement funds. When the plaintiffs returned to court in 2024, the Court imposed freezing orders. It required the administrator to account for the funds. 

To help avoid similar issues, practitioners should set up clear communication protocols. They can offer beneficiaries scheduled updates. Examples include quarterly statements of account, written explanations for any delays, and notice before significant transactions. Important details and communications should be documented in writing and retained as part of the estate record. Sharing reliable and prompt information with beneficiaries builds trust. It also demonstrates sound risk management in estate administration.

Misapplication of Estate Funds

Evidence revealed that after the 2021 settlement, Ms Tadros ceased using the estate’s solicitors. She first instructed them to transfer estate funds into a bank account under her exclusive control. In doing so, she breached core fiduciary duties owed to the estate and its beneficiaries. These duties include the duty of loyalty, proper accounting, and acting exclusively in the best interests of all beneficiaries. Instead, she misappropriated approximately 90% of the estate’s funds, making unauthorised payments to herself and others, including family members. As a result, only about $170,000 remained for distribution.

The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335, starkly highlights the risks professionals face. When fiduciary principles are overlooked, both professional and ethical challenges arise in estate administration. Practitioners can mitigate these risks by implementing safeguards. They should need dual signatories for bank accounts. Conducting independent audits of estate accounts is essential. Practitioners must also make sure that beneficiaries are regularly informed of the status of estate funds. These measures enhance transparency and protect client interests against misuse or misapplication of assets.

Between July and November 2024, the Court held examination hearings to trace the missing funds. Using its powers under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the Court demanded the administrator to supply affidavit evidence. Other recipients of funds were also obligated to give affidavit evidence under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). They were also examined about their dealings with estate assets.

Interim Distribution Principles

The Court also considered making an interim distribution  to beneficiaries despite the estate’s incomplete administration. Drawing on principles from Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508, the Court stated that an appropriate interim distribution where:

  1. Distribution can occur under the governing instrument (the will, intestacy rules, or a settlement agreement).
  2. There is no realistic prospect that the distribution will later need to be reduced due to unresolved administration issues.
  3. The remaining administrative tasks are unlikely to be completed soon.

The 2021 settlement entitlements distribution has been delayed. Given this, the Court indicated justification of an interim distribution if beneficiaries and creditors agreed. The Court also emphasised the need to consider whether remaining funds should be preserved for recovery litigation. In practice, this requires balancing immediate relief to beneficiaries. With keeping funds available for potential asset recovery. Both options involve risks, and the Court stressed the importance of weighing them to reach a fair and practical outcome.

Potential Recoveries and Supervision

The potential for litigation exists to recover misapplied assets. This aims to discover if parties, like the bank, had notice of the administrator’s breach of trust. The judgment highlights the legal principles of ‘knowing assistance’ and ‘knowing receipt’. It emphasizes that third parties, like banks, be held liable in equity. Liability arises if they are found to have participated in or benefited from a breach of trust. ‘Knowing assistance’ occurs when a third party helps in a breach of trust, knowing about the breach. ‘Knowing receipt’ applies when a third party receives property transferred in breach of trust. They must know or have reason to know about the breach. In practice, these principles mean liability of banks or other third parties. This liability arises if they aid an administrator in misapplying estate funds or accept estate assets. This liability occurs if they are aware, or poss, of a breach of fiduciary duty. The case highlights the need for practitioners to consider established equitable principles on liability for misapplied trust property.

The Court considered its supervisory role over legal practitioners. It required affidavit evidence from the estate’s former solicitors. The affidavit should explain their involvement in the administration.

Law Reform Concerns

Justice Slattery noted that beneficiaries were not informed when the estate’s solicitors stopped acting. Control of the funds passed to a sole administrator. The Court proposed referring the matter to the Law Society of NSW and the Attorney-General for possible law reform.Suggesting a rule requiring estate solicitors notification of beneficiaries when they cease acting. This notification is necessary if no new solicitor is appointed. Such a rule would allow beneficiaries to act promptly to protect their interests if professional oversight were to end. 

While the Court’s recommendation raises a significant issue in estate practice. A new notification rule’s formal adoption would need a review and endorsement by the Law Society. It would also need the Attorney-General’s backing possible consultation with the legal profession and relevant regulators. If supported, the amendment to professional conduct rules or regulations governing estate practice. Although law reform processes can be lengthy, the Court’s referral highlights the growing expectations on practitioners. Serious consideration of changes to notification requirements. Practitioners should oversee any developments in this area. As these changes concern ceasing to act in estate matters.and materially affect their obligations.

Possible Criminal Conduct

The Court referred the matter to the NSW Attorney-General due to the significant misapplication of estate funds. They invited consideration of whether any criminal offences. This includes obtaining a financial advantage by deception under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Orders

Key orders included:

  • Referral of the matter to the Attorney-General for possible criminal investigation.
  • Referral to the Law Society about potential law reform.
  • An order requires Ms Tadros to account to the estate. She must show cause why judgment should not be entered against her for about $1.39 million plus interest.
  • Authorisation for the plaintiffs’ solicitors to recover $101,604.67 in legal costs from estate funds for asset recovery work.
  • Directions for further proceedings about potential civil remedies and recovery actions.

Key Significance:
The case shows the Court’s supervisory role in estate administration. This includes asset tracing and interim distributions during incomplete administration. It also involves possible third-party liability and referral of suspected misappropriation for criminal investigation. It also highlights the risks when estate funds are controlled by a single administrator without oversight.

For estate practitioners:

– Verify when control of estate funds moves from a professional firm to an individual administrator. Promptly inform all beneficiaries of any change in representation or oversight.

– Keep a checklist for due diligence at each key stage of estate administration. Include regular review of estate accounts and written consents for distributions. Make sure ongoing communication with beneficiaries to guard against potential misapplication of funds. Examples of practical checklist items include:

 * Has control of estate funds shifted from a professional firm to an individual? If so, have all beneficiaries been notified promptly?

 * Have the most recent estate bank statements been reviewed and reconciled?

 * Are there written consents from beneficiaries for all intended distributions?

 * Has a record of all communications with beneficiaries been updated and securely retained?

 * Are there any unexplained account transactions or delays requiring further inquiry?

These types of questions help practitioners guarantee robust oversight and minimise risk throughout the administration process.

The case shows the Court’s supervisory role in estate administration. This includes asset tracing and interim distributions during incomplete administration. There is also possible third-party liability. The Court may refer suspected misappropriation for criminal investigation. It also highlights the risks when estate funds are controlled by a single administrator without oversight.

For estate practitioners:

  • Verify when control of estate funds moves from a professional firm to an individual administrator. Promptly inform all beneficiaries of any change in representation or oversight.
  • Keep a checklist for due diligence at each key stage of estate administration. Include the regular review of estate accounts. Obtain written consents for distributions. Make sure ongoing communication with beneficiaries to guard against potential misapplication of funds. Examples of practical checklist items include:
  • Has control of estate funds shifted from a professional firm to an individual? If so, have all beneficiaries been notified promptly?
  • Have the most recent estate bank statements been reviewed and reconciled?
  • Are there written consents from beneficiaries for all intended distributions?
  • Has a record of all communications with beneficiaries been updated and securely retained?
  • Are there any unexplained account transactions or delays requiring further inquiry?

These types of questions help practitioners guarantee robust oversight and minimise risk throughout the administration process.

Conclusion and Actionable Insights:

This case powerfully demonstrates the Court’s willingness to intervene when estate administrators breach their fiduciary duties. The court employs measures including asset tracing, interim distributions, and freezing orders. There are also referrals for civil or criminal proceedings. Risks are greatly increased when estate funds are controlled by a single administrator without effective oversight.

Key takeaways and recommended actions for practitioners:

  • Always verify and document any transfer of control of estate funds from a professional firm to an individual administrator.
  • Make sure all beneficiaries are promptly notified of any change in representation or oversight.

Set up robust protocols for due diligence at all stages of estate administration, including:

  • Regular, scheduled communication with beneficiaries (e.g., quarterly statements, advance notice of significant transactions, and written explanations for any delays).
  • Frequent review and reconciliation of estate bank statements and independent audit checks.
  • Obtaining written consents from beneficiaries before distributions.
  • Maintaining a secure and comprehensive record of all communications.
  • Immediate investigation of any unexplained account activity or delays.
  • Consider safeguards like requiring dual signatories on estate accounts.
  • Arrange for periodic independent audits to increase transparency and deter misuse.
  • Stay aware of changes in professional obligations.
  • Pay particular attention to notification requirements when ceasing to act. Notice developments in law reform.

By embedding these safeguards and communication protocols into their practice, estate professionals can significantly reduce the risk of maladministration. They can guarantee accountability. Additionally, they can protect both the estate and its beneficiaries. This proactive, transparent approach is essential for maintaining trust, fulfilling legal duties, and adapting to evolving professional standards.

The post Misapplication of Estate Funds: The Estate of Shoushani; Shoushani v Tadros [2025] NSWSC 1335 appeared first on heirs & successes.