MTH v State of New South Wales (No 3)

[2025] NSWCA 141

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

MTH v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2025] NSWCA 141

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Decision date:

27 June 2025

Before:

Mitchelmore JA; Adamson JA; Price AJA

Decision:

(1)   Discharge the freezing order made by Campbell J on 28 July 2020, as amended by orders, including those made on 12 July 2024 by Garling J and 18 December 2024 by Cavanagh J.

(2)   Note that Monica Ross-Maranik, who was appointed as a special administrator and administrator ad litem by Garling J on 11 March 2024, is responsible, as such, for the administration of the estate of the late Geoffrey Croft, the second respondent.

(3)   Make no order as to the costs of the application for discharge of the freezing order.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – freezing orders – freezing orders discharged

Cases Cited:

MTH v Croft [2020] NSWSC 986

MTH v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 122

Category:

Consequential orders

Parties:

MTH (Appellant)
State of New South Wales (First Respondent)
Estate of the late Geoffrey Croft (Second Respondent)
Sandra Croft (Third Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented (Appellant)
C P O’Neill (First Respondent)
K W Andrews (Second Respondent)
P A Tierney (Third Respondent)

Solicitors:
Not applicable (Appellant)
Makinson D’Apice Lawyers (First Respondent)
Keypoint Law (Second Respondent)
Moin Morris Schaefer (Third Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/34755

Publication restriction:

Publication of names and any information or material that may lead to the identification of the appellant is prohibited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A; Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

MTH v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1517; MTH v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1681

Date of Decision:

28 November 2024

Before:

Cavanagh J

File Number(s):

2020/113788

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Following the Court’s decision in MTH v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 122 on 6 June 2025, the Court directed the parties to address the freezing order made by Campbell J on 28 July 2020, concerning assets then held by the second defendant (Geoffrey Croft) and the third defendant (Sandra Croft). Following delivery of this Court’s judgment on the appeal, the parties were directed to make submissions as to the freezing order.

The first respondent noted that it had no interest in the assets. The third respondent noted that the freezing order had already been discharged in relation to her assets. The second respondent (the estate of the late Geoffrey Croft) submitted that the freezing order should be discharged, noting that the Court had appointed Ms Ross-Maranik to be a special administrator and administrator ad litem, and that Ms Ross-Maranik could not administer the estate until the freezing order was discharged. The appellant opposed the discharge.

The Court held (Adamson JA, Mitchelmore JA, Price AJA) discharging the freezing order:

1. The issues in the proceedings have been determined and judgment has been entered in favour of the appellant against the second respondent.

2. Ms Ross-Maranik is obliged to administer the estate in her capacity as special administrator. There is no reason to question her ability to administer the estate in accordance with the legal and equitable obligations arising from her appointment. Therefore, the freezing order should be discharged: [7].

JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: On 6 June 2025, the Court made orders in this matter and published its reasons: MTH v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 122. It also made the directions to address the freezing order which was made by Campbell J on 28 July 2020 (although the JusticeLink entry records the date of the order as 27 July 2020) relating to assets held by Geoffrey Croft (who was originally the first defendant in the proceedings but who died after their commencement, which resulted in MTH’s claim being continued against his estate (the estate), which was the second respondent on the appeal) and Sandra Croft, the third respondent: MTH v Croft [2020] NSWSC 986. The freezing order was subsequently varied, including on 12 July 2024 (by Garling J) and 18 December 2024 (by Cavanagh J).

2. On 6 June 2025, this Court directed the parties to provide, within 14 days, short minutes of order proposing a consent order to address the freezing order made in the proceedings in the Court below, as amended, or, in the absence of consent, a draft minute of order which sets out the order for which the party contends together with a short written submission in favour of that party’s version, which the Court will determine on the papers.

3. The parties were unable to reach agreement on the orders which ought be made by this Court regarding the freezing order. The State of New South Wales, the first respondent to the appeal, made no submissions in relation to the freezing order, as it has no interest in the assets the subject of the freezing order. Mrs Croft made brief submissions in relation to the freezing order, noting that it was varied on 18 December 2024 so as to be discharged to the extent that it imposed obligations on her, and objecting to any further freezing order being made with respect to her assets given this Court’s judgment.

4. Mr Andrews, who appeared on behalf of the estate, submitted that the freezing order ought be wholly discharged as the assets which were covered by the freezing order were in the hands of Monica Ross-Maranik, who on 11 March 2024 was appointed by Garling J both as a special administrator and an administrator ad litem of the estate until further order. He submitted that, until the freezing order is lifted, Ms Ross-Maranik is prevented from administering the estate. He submitted that once the freezing order is discharged the administrator will be in a position to “appropriately administer the estate having regard to the totality of the estate which will involve taking all necessary steps to address all other property within the estate and the estate’s liabilities.” The liabilities of the estate include the judgment debt in favour of MTH ordered by this Court as well as the order for costs against the estate. Mr Andrews further submitted that the administrator will only be in a position to carry out her duties with respect to the assets and liabilities of the estate upon discharge of the freezing order.

5. MTH, who represented herself in this Court and, in part, in the Court below, provided submissions to this Court, in several tranches comprising both emails and written submissions, which went beyond the ambit of the directions made on 6 June 2025 in relation to the freezing order. To the extent to which the further submissions fall outside the ambit of the directions, this Court is obliged to disregard them as it has published its judgment in the matter and cannot, in the present circumstances, revisit it. This includes the submissions which MTH made concerning a claim for family provision which it would appear she proposes to bring against the estate. Mr Andrews has confirmed that the estate is unaware of any claim for family provision brought against it by MTH.

6. In her written submissions dated 11 June 2025, MTH requested that the freezing orders remain “until the confirmation and receipt of the settlement from the [e]state” (a similar request was made in her written submissions dated 19 June 2025). It is not clear whether this is a reference to the proposed family provision claim or a reference to the judgment sum as a consequence of this Court’s judgment of 6 June 2025.

7. The issues in the proceedings in this Court have been determined and judgment in favour of MTH ordered against the estate. It is now Ms Ross-Maranik’s role to administer the estate in accordance with her duties as special administrator (her role as administrator ad litem reaching its conclusion with the end of these proceedings). There is no reason to question her capacity to administer the estate in accordance with the legal and equitable obligations that result from her appointment. As to any further claim that MTH might have against the estate, there is no evidence of any claim having been made by MTH or received by the estate, beyond the claim brought in the present proceedings. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that there is any reason to keep the remaining freezing order on foot. We accept Mr Andrews’ submission that the administrator cannot administer the estate unless and until the freezing order is discharged.

8. For the reasons given above, the Court makes the following orders:

1. Discharge the freezing order made by Campbell J on 28 July 2020, as amended by orders, including those made on 12 July 2024 by Garling J and 18 December 2024 by Cavanagh J.

2. Note that Monica Ross-Maranik, who was appointed as a special administrator and administrator ad litem by Garling J on 11 March 2024, is responsible, as such, for the administration of the estate of the late Geoffrey Croft, the second respondent.

3. Make no order as to the costs of the application for discharge of the freezing order.

**********

Decision last updated: 27 June 2025