Kohu v Sofaea

[2025] NZHC 1655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1026

[2025] NZHC 1655

UNDER

the Administration Act 1969 and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

IN THE MATTER

of an application for the removal of Pauline Hirini Sofaea as the executor and

trustee of the Estate of Reggie Andrew Kohu

BETWEEN

SANDY FIONA KOHU

Applicant

AND

PAULINE HIRINI SOFAEA

Respondent

Hearing:	19 June 2025
Appearances:	JEG San Diego for applicant
Date of judgment:	19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 June 2025 at 2.30pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Cowan Law, Auckland

KOHU v SOFAEA [2025] NZHC 1655 [19 June 2025]

[1]                 As duty judge, I have an application for judgment by default by way of formal proof,1 on Sandy Kohu’s originating application for orders to remove Pauline Sofaea as executor and trustee of Reggie Andrew Kohu’s estate.

Background

[2]                 Mr Kohu died on 11 August 2021. I offer the Court’s condolence to his survivors.

[3]                 Mr Kohu’s will appointed Ms Sofaea executor and trustee of his estate. The beneficiaries are Mr Kohu’s three children, including Ms Kohu.

[4]                 Probate was granted accordingly on 24 February 2022, appointing Ms Sofaea administrator. Ms Sofaea has not since made any distribution from the estate and correspondence with her has not been productive.

[5]                 Ms Kohu proposes she replace Ms Sofaea as executor, although she offers family and institutional alternatives.

The applicable law

[6]Section 21(1) of the Administration Act 1969 relevantly provides:

… where it becomes expedient to discharge or remove an administrator, the court may discharge or remove that administrator, and may if it thinks fit appoint any person to be administrator in his or her place, on such terms and conditions in all respects as the court thinks fit.

[7]                 It is well-established “[t]he starting point is the Court’s duty to see estates properly administered”,2 and “[e]xpedience is a lower threshold than necessity, and imports considerations of suitability, practicality and efficiency. Misconduct, breach of trust, dishonesty, or unfitness need not be established”.3

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 15.9.

2      Frickleton v Frickleton [2016] NZCA 408, [2017] 2 NZLR 154 at [29(a)], citing Tod v Tod [2015] NZCA 501 at [22] (citing Farquhar v Nunns [2013] NZHC 1670 at [13]).

3      At [29(d)], endorsed in Wyllie v Firmin [2024] NZCA 291 at [15], n 7.

[8]                 On a formal proof hearing, I need only be satisfied the applicant has filed affidavit evidence establishing “each cause of action relied on”.4 By ‘satisfied’ is meant I just make up my mind that is the case.5

Discussion

[9]                 I am satisfied by the affidavit evidence Ms Sofaea’s inaction makes her removal expedient. I particularly am motivated by this Court’s “duty” to see estates properly administered. In the absence of any contest from beneficiaries to Ms Kohu’s nomination instead, I see no reason to second-guess her appointment.

Result

[10]              Under s 21(1) of the Administration Act 1969, I remove Pauline Hirini Sofaea as administrator of the estate of Reggie Andrew Kohu, and appoint Sandy Fiona Kohu in her place.

—Jagose J

4      High Court Rules, r 15.9(4).

5      Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [96].