Turch v Tripolone [2025] NSWSC 86

Turch v Tripolone [2025] NSWSC 86

The defendant breached her duties as administrator by intermingling estate assets with personal assets and by breaching the self-dealing rule in relation to sale of the Blacktown property to her husband (who acted as her agent). The defendant is to be removed as administrator, the sale is to be set aside unless the reserve price is not achieved at a further auction, and an independent administrator (from the Law Society's list) is to be appointed. The defendant is not liable to compensate for failure to rent the property as the discretion not to let was reasonably exercised given the circumstances and no want of ordinary prudence was shown in this regard.

Parties
Plaintiff: Roberto Giuseppe Turch; Defendant: Diana Sandra Tripolone
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Equity Succession (principal Judgment) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds in orders setting aside sale, removal of defendant as administrator, appointment of independent administrator, no compensation for loss of rental income.
Legal Topics
Trusts and Trustees—breaches of Trust, Fiduciary Duties—breach—conflict of Interest and Duty, Executors and Administrators—proceedings Against, Removal, Rights, Powers, And Duties
Equity Succession Trusts and Trustees—breaches of Trust Fiduciary Duties—breach—conflict of Interest and Duty Executors and Administrators—proceedings Against, Removal, Rights, Powers, and Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 52 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberto Giuseppe Turch

Plaintiff

Diana Sandra Tripolone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Succession (principal Judgment) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration to the defendant should be revoked due to breach of fiduciary duties
  2. 2 Whether the sale and transfer by the defendant of the principal estate asset to her husband should be set aside for self-dealing
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable to compensate the estate for failure to rent the Blacktown property prior to sale

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached her duties as administrator by intermingling estate assets with personal assets and by breaching the self-dealing rule in relation to sale of the Blacktown property to her husband (who acted as her agent). The defendant is to be removed as administrator, the sale is to be set aside unless the reserve price is not achieved at a further auction, and an independent administrator (from the Law Society's list) is to be appointed. The defendant is not liable to compensate for failure to rent the property as the discretion not to let was reasonably exercised given the circumstances and no want of ordinary prudence was shown in this regard.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds in orders setting aside sale, removal of defendant as administrator, appointment of independent administrator, no compensation for loss of rental income.

Orders

  • Sale of Blacktown property to Mario Tripolone is set aside on condition property be put to auction with reserve $1,581,000; if reserve not met, sale stands.
  • Defendant removed as administrator; independent administrator from Law Society list to be appointed.