• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

File Number(s): 2024/00413859

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. On 15 June 2026, I delivered reasons in this matter, to the effect that the will of the late Ahileas Parastatidis ought to be administered in accordance with its terms, namely, that his residual estate be divided between his three daughters in equal shares as tenants in common: see Tarazi v Paras; Paras v Tarazi [2026] NSWSC 369 (Judgment). I did not accept that Ahileas was bound by any agreement or representation to exclude Yvonne from the will, with the practical of favouring Sophia and Anastasia.

2. I directed the parties to confer about appropriate orders giving effect to my reasons. They failed to agree on all matters, but did agree on most.

3. The issues that remain in dispute are:

4. Whether the independent administrator for the estate, being an experienced lawyer, ought to be paid his usual hourly rate;

5. Whether all parties ought to be granted liberty to apply in the context of the administration, rather than just the administrator; and

6. Costs. Yvonne seeks her costs on the ordinary basis up to 1 April 2026, on which date an offer of compromise was served on Sophia and Anastasia, and on an indemnity basis from 2 April 2026 onwards, without recourse to the estate of Ahileas. Sophia and Anastasia seek for costs to be payable on the ordinary basis only.

7. Each matter is considered below.

Hourly rate of independent administrator

5. At all times during the hearing, Yvonne sought the appointment of an independent administrator who would also carry out an account to the estate. As noted in Judgment at [97], I considered it appropriate to appoint an independent and experienced lawyer as administrator because of the antagonism between the parties.

6. Sophia and Anastasia were aware that Mr Gerard John Basha was proposed as independent administrator, and were aware from his affidavit of his qualifications, current professional role and hourly rate.

7. Mr Basha was not cross-examined at the hearing. No submission was made that he was not a fit and proper person to carry out the role of independent administrator. No other alternative independent administrator was proposed at the hearing.

8. In written submissions on their proposed final orders, Sophia and Anastasia submitted the estate should be administered by the NSW Trustee and Guardian, which charges a one-off executor fee, or Mr Phillip Davis, a solicitor who charges an hourly rate of $600 plus GST.

9. I consider the time to have proposed an alternative independent administrator was at the hearing, not after judgment was delivered. I further note Mr Basha will engage the assistance of a senior associate, lawyers and paralegals at lower hourly rates of charge.

10. I consider Mr Basha is a highly appropriate person to be appointed to the role of administrator and, in light of the work to be undertaken, do not consider his fees excessive. I will appoint him and allow him to charge his usual hourly rate of $750 plus GST carrying out the role as administrator and trustee.

11. I already indicated to the parties that I am not prepared to allow Mr Basha to be paid from the estate in respect of “non-professional” services rendered by him, in circumstances where Mr Basha will act as a professional administrator and trustee.

12. Sophia and Anastasia also took issue with orders 7 and 9 proposed by Yvonne, which provided for Sophia and Anastasia to account for rent received on a wilful default basis; those orders did not provide for outgoing expenses. I note the time for parties to contest proposed orders has long passed. In any event, as I found in Judgment at [72], there was no clear delineation between their personal living expenses, including, for example, electricity, and expenses relevant to the rented part of the building, meaning any outgoings are difficult, if not impossible, to account for accurately.

13. However, as accepted by Yvonne, Sophia and Anastasia are entitled to a claim for “just allowance” in respect of expenses properly incurred in improving the Ashbury property: Northey v Juul [2008] NSWSC 275 at [66]-[73] (Macready AsJ) (and citations there) (finding not disturbed on appeal: see Juul v Northey [2010] NSWCA 211).

Liberty to apply

14. It is usual to grant an independent administrator/trustee liberty to apply to the Court if an issue arises during their role, in relation to which they require guidance or orders to be made. I grant Mr Basha as administrator liberty to apply to the Court for further or other orders as may be required, including for the taking of accounts of the estate and in respect of Sophia and Anastasia’s liability to account on a wilful default basis.

15. It is not usual to grant all parties liberty to apply. The dispute between the parties has been determined. It is not expected that any party will have another attempt at litigating that which was or could have been litigated before the Court during the hearing. Only if it was appropriate would the parties be heard in relation to an issue raised by the administrator. Sophia and Anastasia agreed that liberty to apply should be limited to the administrator.

16. I will not grant the parties liberty to apply. That does not prevent them from exercising any right they otherwise have to access the Court for legitimate purposes.

Costs

17. Yvonne seeks her costs partly on an indemnity basis, by reason of her unaccepted offer.

18. On 1 April 2026, Yvonne made an offer of compromise to Sophia and Anastasia pursuant to r 20.26 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), and in the alternative, pursuant to the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 (Calderbank). The offer was open for acceptance until 30 April 2026, and provided the following relevant terms:

19. Sophia and Anastasia pay Yvonne the sum of $768,000 within 14 days of the orders being entered (representing a one-third share of the Ashbury property, based on a provided valuation report dated 19 February 2025 which valued the Ashbury property at $2,100,000);

20. The proceedings and cross-claim be dismissed; and

21. No order as to costs with the intent that the parties would bear their own costs of the proceedings.

22. Sophia and Anastasia did not accept Yvonne’s offer.

23. Offers made under r 20.26 UCPR carry a presumptive entitlement to indemnity costs where the plaintiff obtains a judgment no less favourable to the plaintiff than the terms of its offer to the defendant: r 42.14 UCPR.

24. Yvonne’s offer forewent any entitlement she had to the total rental income from the property since Ahileas’ death. In Judgment at [98], I found Sophia and Anastasia are liable to account to the estate for the use of the Ashbury property. The judgment Yvonne obtained is therefore “no less favourable” to Yvonne.

25. In the alternative that Yvonne’s offer was a Calderbank offer, I am satisfied that an indemnity costs order is justified given: see generally Della Franca v Lorenzato (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 53 at [47] (Brereton J), in circumstances where:

26. The final judgment is no more favourable to Sophia and Anastasia;

27. I consider their rejection of the offer was unreasonable in circumstances where Yvonne’s position resisting Sophia and Anastasia’s claim of entitlement to the Ashbury property as set out in the covering letter to her offer remained unchanged at the hearing, the time allowed to consider the offer was reasonable (the offer was open for 28 days and provided for payment within 14 days of orders, ie Sophia and Anastasia had a period of up to six weeks to make payment), the extent of the compromise was reasonable, and the terms of the offer were clearly set out: see El Assaad v Al Haje (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 17 at [45] (Ward P, Ball JA and Price AJA); and

28. The offer sufficiently foreshadowed its use on the question of costs.

29. As the offer was made before the first day of the trial, indemnity costs are payable from the beginning of the day following the day on which the offer was made, being 2 April 2026: r 42.14(2)(b)(i) UCPR.

Appropriate orders

24. I make the following orders:

Orders for appointment of independent administrator

1. Order that Gerard John Basha, solicitor of the legal practice Bartier Perry Pty Limited, is appointed as independent administrator of the estate of the late Ahileas Parastatidis (deceased).
2. Order that Letters of Administration with the will of the deceased dated 19 November 1998 annexed be granted to Gerard John Basha.
3. Order that the first and second defendants provide to Gerard John Basha as administrator all information in their custody or control as to the assets and liabilities of the deceased as at the date of his death, within 14 days from the making of these orders.
4. Order that the matter be remitted to the Registrar to complete the grant.
5. Order dispensing with the requirement for payment of an administration bond.
6. Order that Gerard John Basha is entitled:

(a) To be paid from the estate all usual and proper charges at the usual hourly rates as are charged by the legal practice in which he is engaged, currently $750 per hour plus GST, and on the usual terms as to payment of that practice:

(i) For his work as administrator or trustee, or both; (ii) For the professional services rendered by him or that legal practice in the administration of the estate of the deceased or the trusts of the will, or both; and

(b) To engage the services of any other legal practitioner, accountant or other professional adviser in relation to the administration of the estate where he considers it necessary to do so and to pay from the estate the costs incurred in having those services provided.

Orders to account for rent received

7. Order that the first and second defendants are to account on a wilful default basis to Gerard John Basha as administrator for all rent received from the rental of Shops 1 and 2 of 34-36 King Street, Ashbury NSW 2193 (folio identifier 2/537174) (Ashbury Property) from the date of the deceased's death up to the date of these orders, within four months from the date of these orders. Such account to include rent received as trustee and/or beneficiary of the Kozani Trust ABN 32 773 793 450.
8. Order that the first and second defendants may claim for “just allowance” as part of the accounting process in order (7) for expenses properly incurred by them in improving the estate only.
9. Order that the first and second defendants are to pay to Gerard John Basha as administrator the amount found due to the estate of the deceased on the taking of such accounts, plus interest on annual net rental income received in each financial year or part thereof from 30 June 2012 to 30 June 2026 calculated in accordance with s 100(1) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and Practice Note SC Gen 16.

Directions for account

10. Direct that the first defendant serve on Gerard John Basha as administrator, within four months from the date of these orders, a complete form of written accounts in the form similar to that annexed to UCPR Form 150, verified by affidavit, in respect of the real and personal property comprised in the estate of the deceased, commencing from the date of death, which accounts include, but are not limited to:

(a) The nature and value of the estate, by way of inventory of property; (b) All moneys (capital and income), received, including but not limited to rent received from the Ashbury property; (c) Any assets that have been re-invested; (d) Any monies disbursed by her, or by any other person on her behalf; (e) The dealings and transactions, including, but not limited to, the transfer of unrealised assets; (f) Any assets transferred, including any in specie distributions; (g) Any assets that remain undistributed and unrealised; (h) If any asset loss has occurred, the nature and value of that loss; (i) Any amounts expended on professional assistance such as a solicitor, accountant, valuer, or real estate agent, and any authority to pay the amounts so expended; (j) Any amounts deducted by the first defendant for commission, or otherwise, which he has obtained out of the estate; and (k) A reconciliation of the funds held as at the date of the serving of the accounts.

11. Directs that such accounts shall also specify:

(a) In respect of each payment, or receipt, the date and the amount thereof; (b) To whom the payment was made, or from whom the payment was received; and (c) The purpose or account for, or to which, the amount was paid, or received, as the case may be.

12. Directs that any items of such account statement be numbered consecutively.
13. Directs that the first defendant prepare a folder containing all invoices, receipts for disbursements, bank statements, deposit books, or documents evidencing electronic deposits or disbursements, bills for all professional work, receipts for any distributions to beneficiaries, including any assets transferred in specie to a beneficiary and any additional receipts, or other evidence of transactions shown in the accounts, as may be appropriate.
14. Directs that the first defendant provide to Gerard John Basha as administrator a complete copy of the folder of documents prepared in accordance with the preceding orders at the reasonable cost of copying documents, within four months from the date of these orders.
15. Directs that the form of accounts be served in Word format.

Liberty to apply

16. Grant Gerard John Basha as administrator liberty to apply to the Court on 3 days’ notice for further or other orders as may be required, including for the taking of accounts of the estate and in respect of the first and second defendants’ liability to account on a wilful default basis.

Costs

17. Order the first defendant/cross-claimant and second defendant/cross-claimant personally pay the plaintiff/cross-defendant’s costs of the proceedings (in respect of the claim and cross-claim), such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis up to 1 April 2026, and on an indemnity basis from 2 April 2026 onwards, without recourse to the estate of the deceased.