Re Estate of the Late Tanju (Andrew) Assim; Application of Ayleen Assim and Elise Assim [2015] NSWSC 337
The plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that the deceased died intestate, that they were the persons entitled to the estate on intestacy, and that urgent appointment was necessary to preserve the value of the real estate business because there was no signatory to its trust account. However, the demonstrated necessity justified only a limited administration: the plaintiffs could appoint directors to the three companies and conduct their affairs in the ordinary course or as necessary to preserve assets, but broader powers such as selling estate assets were not presently shown to be necessary.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Appointment as Administrators of Estate Under Probate and Administration Act 1898 S 74 / Urgent Application for Limited Administration Pending a Grant of Probate or Administration
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs appointed administrators of the estate with limitations on their powers pending a grant of probate or administration; administration bond and sureties dispensed with; liberty to apply granted; costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis.
- Legal Topics
- ['appointment of Administrators' 'intestacy' 'limited Administration Ad Colligenda Bona Defuncti' 'single Director and Single Shareholder Proprietary Companies' 'preservation of Estate Assets' 'real Estate Agency Trust Account']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment as Administrators of Estate Under Probate and Administration Act 1898 S 74 / Urgent Application for Limited Administration Pending a Grant of Probate or Administration
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be appointed administrators of the deceased's estate under Probate and Administration Act 1898 s 74." 'Whether the appointment should be limited to the purpose of preserving estate assets pending a full grant of administration or probate.' "Whether the plaintiffs should be able to appoint directors to the deceased's proprietary companies under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 201F." 'Whether an administration bond or sureties should be required.']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that the deceased died intestate, that they were the persons entitled to the estate on intestacy, and that urgent appointment was necessary to preserve the value of the real estate business because there was no signatory to its trust account. However, the demonstrated necessity justified only a limited administration: the plaintiffs could appoint directors to the three companies and conduct their affairs in the ordinary course or as necessary to preserve assets, but broader powers such as selling estate assets were not presently shown to be necessary.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs appointed administrators of the estate with limitations on their powers pending a grant of probate or administration; administration bond and sureties dispensed with; liberty to apply granted; costs to be paid from the estate on the indemnity basis.
Orders
- ['Upon the undertaking of Charly Tannous to pay the filing fee by 4 pm on Monday, 30 March 2015, leave granted to the plaintiffs to file in Court a summons for administration.' 'Leave granted to the plaintiffs to file the affidavit of Tayfun Mustafa Demirezen sworn on 27 March 2015, the affidavit of Ayleen Frances...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment