A millionaire lawyer behind a failed squatter\u2019s rights case has had a separate bid to claim the inheritance of a wealthy Sydney solicitor from his adult daughter sensationally thrown out of court.<\/p>\n
The NSW Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Yael Abraham\u2019s long-running probate claim<\/a> against Annie Goldberg, ordering the retired solicitor and self-described children\u2019s rights activist to pay Ms Goldberg\u2019s legal costs in a scathing judgment blasting her \u201cegregious\u201d and \u201cinexcusable\u201d behaviour.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a clear case for dismissal based upon Ms Abraham\u2019s continuing default in compliance with the court\u2019s orders,\u201d Justice Michael Slattery said.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham\u2019s recent conduct in not complying with the court\u2019s financial orders shows both disrespect for the authority of the court and a willingness to continue to engage in brinkmanship, slow-walking these proceedings to keep them progressing at a pace which suits her. The court is confident that if it were to allow these proceedings to continue, she would comply with only the court\u2019s orders that suited her, when they suited her.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Slattery said Ms Abraham\u2019s \u201cconduct in response to the motion [to dismiss] has been so egregious that the court will make an indemnity cost order against her in respect of those costs\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham\u2019s delay in prolonging the proceedings has been very much focused on conduct related to the motion and that delay may correctly described as \u2018inordinate\u2019 and accompanied by aggravating features which are more than mere delay,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Ms Abraham, whose unrelated squatter\u2019s rights<\/a> claim over a $3 million pair of Sydney terraces was thrown out of the NSW Supreme Court early last year, first brought the proceedings in March 2022, seeking to set aside wills left by Ms Goldberg\u2019s parents in favour of two alternative wills that allegedly appointed Ms Abraham as sole executor of their estates.<\/p>\n Leon Goldberg, a well-known criminal solicitor, died in June 2020 aged 91. His former partner, Carol Goldberg, died in January 2014.<\/p>\n Carol and Leon Goldberg left behind a substantial estate that included properties in Vaucluse, the Blue Mountains, Dulwich Hill and Ambarvale, thought to be worth at least $20 million.<\/p>\n In 2022, one of Leon\u2019s properties \u2014 a dilapidated and abandoned old shop on a waterfront block on Fitzwilliam Street, Vaucluse \u2014 was sold at auction for $17.1 million. At the time of her death, Carol\u2019s primary asset was her Ambarvale home, valued at $450,000.<\/p>\n Ms Goldberg was their only child.<\/p>\n Ms Abraham, who lives in a six-bedroom Gold Coast mansion, has no biological relationship to Leon but claimed to have been his friend and confidante \u2014 a claim denied by Ms Goldberg, who alleged in court the 2014 and 2015 wills were forgeries.<\/p>\n Neither side\u2019s claims were tested at trial.<\/p>\n In May last year, Justice Slattery rejected Ms Goldberg\u2019s motion to have the case dismissed outright but issued a stern warning to Ms Abraham not to continue her \u201cunacceptably chaotic conduct of the proceedings\u201d, including repeated \u201chighly disruptive\u201d failures to appear for hearings and changes of lawyers.<\/p>\n Despite being told she was on thin ice after a \u201clong period\u201d of substantial procedural defaults and being \u201cgranted several indulgences\u201d, Ms Abraham \u201cdefaulted fully again\u201d following Justice Slattery\u2019s May orders, and Ms Goldberg\u2019s motion to dismiss was reheard in February.<\/p>\n In dismissing the case on Thursday, Justice Slattery revealed for the first time the scale of Ms Abraham\u2019s fortune, after she was ordered last May to provide a detailed affidavit on her financial situation.<\/p>\n Ms Abraham had partially blamed her prior conduct on a lack of funds.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court was sceptical of that claim, especially as she had practised as a solicitor for 25 years,\u201d Justice Slattery said.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham\u2019s affidavit disclosed gross assets in the order of $11.28 million and liabilities in the order of $5 million (with net assets therefore of $6.28 million).<\/p>\n \u201cThis affidavit also disclosed that Ms Abraham is the (sole) owner of a six-bedroom, seven-bathroom, four-car garage property on the Gold Coast in Queensland, and had recently sold her four-bedroom, three-bathroom property in the NSW southern highlands for $2.401 million (receiving net proceeds of sale in the order of $1.794 million). <\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham also had cash of $146,160 and owned some vacant land in Canungra, Queensland, which Ms Abraham assessed as worth $715,000 and which she was attempting to sell.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Slattery said he had previously been willing to \u201cgive her the benefit of the doubt\u201d but the financial disclosure meant the court\u2019s \u201cwillingness in the first judgment to forgive her past procedural defaults was secured by her on a false basis\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham has misled the court about the reasons why she has been unable to comply with court orders,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cHad the court known her true financial position in May 2025, she is less likely to have been afforded the indulgence she was given at that time, due to the egregious nature of her defaults up to then. Second, a preparedness to make false statements to the court about her financial position indicates she cannot be relied upon to adhere to any future timetable to bring these proceedings to a timely conclusion.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Slattery said Ms Abraham had continued to cause \u201cunacceptable\u201d delays last year, including in securing new legal representation after the retirement of her solicitor and paying interim costs orders for failing to appear at \u201cwasted directions hearings\u201d.<\/p>\n He highlighted one overdue payment to Ms Goldberg that required repeated requests from her lawyers.<\/p>\n \u201cShe effectively slow-walked making this payment to suit herself in a manner which was plainly likely to add to the legal costs of Ms Goldberg by generating further correspondence chasing up the overdue $2000,\u201d Justice Slattery said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis failure to pay Ms Goldberg quickly is at one level only about a relatively small sum in these proceedings. But at another level it strongly demonstrates that Ms Abraham continues to choose to cause inconvenience to Ms Goldberg and the court in this litigation instead of honouring her court-ordered obligations in a timely fashion. <\/p>\n \u201cMs Goldberg should never have needed to chase a diligent litigant in Ms Abraham\u2019s position. Given her intelligence and resources a court can only infer that Ms Abraham is not a diligent litigant by choice.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Slattery said Ms Abraham\u2019s professional experience, \u201csubstantial financial resources and the very clear warnings from the court in the first judgment about the consequences of her further noncompliance with its orders\u201d made her conduct \u201cinexcusable\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201c[Ms Abraham] cannot be relied upon to conduct this litigation in accordance with the Court\u2019s orders and timetables and the objectives mandated by Civil Procedure Act 2005,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The costs order relates only to the motion to dismiss, rather than the rest of the proceedings, to reflect the \u201cunreasonable financial waste which she unleashed by her contest of the motion\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe dividing line may be difficult to draw between motion costs and other costs, but the court may have to draw it if the parties cannot agree,\u201d Justice Slattery said.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Goldberg should relist the proceedings for directions concerning the balance of the proceedings, namely her cross-claim, which seeks probate of Leon\u2019s 2018 will and Carol\u2019s 2013 will and family provision relief. Much of the cross-claim may no longer be necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Abraham told the court last year she had brought the proceedings for altruistic reasons for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the 2014 and 2015 wills \u2014 which included herself, her daughter, the United Israel Appeal and the NSW Friendship Circle.<\/p>\n Carol\u2019s purported will stated that Ms Goldberg was to be given \u201cthe sum of $80 pw\u201d, while Leon\u2019s gave 50 per cent of his estate to be held on trust by Ms Abraham for Ms Goldberg, declaring that she \u201csuffers from a mental illness\u201d and is \u201cnot capable of managing her own financial affairs\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cMs Abraham says she was not involved in the preparation either of Carol\u2019s 2014 will or Leon\u2019s 2015 will,\u201d Justice Slattery said in his ruling last year.<\/p>\n \u201cBut Ms Abraham has not so far adduced any evidence as to who prepared these wills. Ms Abraham has at various times been asked to bring into Court the originals of Carol\u2019s 2014 will, and Leon\u2019s 2015 will. She has produced neither. She has made available what she claims are photocopies of the original of each will.\u201d<\/p>\n At the agreement of both parties, the photocopy documents were examined by handwriting expert Melanie Holt, who delivered her report in July 2023.<\/p>\n \u201cIt concludes that there is moderately strong support for the hypothesis that someone other than Leon wrote the signature on the 2015 will and that the 2015 will contains anomalies throughout that bring its veracity as a whole [into] question,\u201d Justice Slattery said.<\/p>\n \u201cDue to the limited number of available specimen signatures provided for Carol, Ms Holt was unable to reach a conclusion concerning the testator\u2019s signature on the 2014 will but she observed anomalies throughout the 2014 will, which brought its veracity into question.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Abraham strongly denied she was involved in any forgery \u201cand that if it turns out the wills are forgeries then she says the forgeries must have been engineered by others\u201d. \u201cThe issue is yet to be decided at trial,\u201d Justice Slattery said last year.<\/p>\n He noted that in certain cases \u201cwhere forgery by some person is established, or strongly indicated, after a civil trial, this might lead to the referral of the proceedings to the Attorney-General for consideration of a prosecution\u201d carrying a possible prison sentence of 14 years.<\/p>\n \u201cSuch referrals are made from time to time after the outcome of civil trials where forgery is alleged,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n This did not occur as the claim of forgery was never decided.<\/p>\n \u201cBy drawing attention to this, the Court is not indicating any view that forgery has occurred in this case but merely reminding both parties that civil litigation can be very consequential beyond its central contest,\u201d Justice Slattery said.<\/p>\n A lawyer for Ms Goldberg on Friday said her client declined to comment.<\/p>\n Ms Abraham did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n