Three Hearings And A Jail Sentence

Personal representative's failure to provide truthful disclosure leads to 12 months in prison.

Ms Sandhu obtained letters of administration on 12 May 2009 in her late mother's estate. A year later her sisters issued proceedings to remove her as personal representative and to get an account of the estate administration.

In 2011 the court decided that it would not remove Ms Sandhu as personal representative provided she supply her sisters with interim estate accounts and pay her sisters' legal costs. In the 5 years following that decision the court was kept busy as a result of Ms Sandhu's unhelpful conduct and persistent non-compliance. Between 2012 and 2014 the court assessed the costs Ms Sandhu was to pay, it issued further orders against Ms Sandhu for the provision of interim accounts, and following her continued failure to pay it issued third party debt orders addressed to her bank. In 2015 and 2016 the court ordered Ms Sandhu to comply with her sisters' formal request for further information and heard Ms Sandhu's unsuccessful applications for appeal of certain orders and for the recusal of one of the judges.

Three key hearings in 2017 sealed her fate.

Hearing 1

On 30 March 2017 the court granted the sisters' application for a freezing injunction against Ms Sandhu's worldwide assets. Because the order was made before Ms Sandhu was given notice, the court ordered a further hearing with Ms Sandhu on 6 April 2017.

Hearing 2

At the 6 April hearing, the court ordered Ms Sandhu to disclose information about her assets and about transactions she had entered into. She was ordered to do this by 11 April 2017 and follow this up with affidavit evidence by 18 April 2017.

Ms Sandhu missed both deadlines. Ten days after the 11 April 2017 deadline, the sisters commenced 'committal proceedings' to have Ms Sandhu imprisoned for non-compliance with the court's order.

Hearing 3

The committal proceedings were listed for a hearing on 11 May 2017. On 10 May Ms Sandhu's solicitors provided her sworn affidavit. It was accompanied by a letter stating that the affidavit satisfied her outstanding disclosure obligations and there was no need for a hearing. The hearing continued on 15 May and 17 May 2017. On 15 May Ms Sandhu filed further affidavit evidence.

On 17 May 2017 counsel for the sisters argued that Ms Sandhu's breach of the disclosure order was so serious as to deserve an immediate and significant custodial sentence. Counsel argued that Ms Sandhu had failed...