Login
Barrister’s $27m estate to be distributed to controversial parties
The NSW Supreme Court has examined the “suspicious circumstances” behind the multiple wills of a prominent, deceased barrister whose later life was marred by deteriorating health, an “exploitative” affiliation with a man many years his junior and complicated and ever-shifting relationships with many close friends and family.
Naomi Neilson
Although notoriously a “penny pincher”, deceased barrister David Rolfe enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, friendships with prominent people and an estate valued at $27 million. Between 1995 and 2014, Mr Rofe drafted several wills distributing this value between several parties who are now debating what they should be owed.
In the latter part of his life, Mr Rofe was suffering from a cognitive impairment under a form of dementia associated with vascular disease, aggravated by a lifetime of heavy drinking. Although his last will was drafted amid this diagnosis, it came over two years before his death and months before his health took a turn for the worse.
One recipient of this last will was trained solicitor Nick Llewellyn who could stand to receive $100,000, a portrait of Mr Rofe and a Queensland property pending the outcome of the ongoing hearing. Mr Llewellyn and Mr Rofe were in a “love-hate” relationship during a time in which Mr Rofe was said to be in a “vulnerable” position.
The Honourable Justice Geoff Lindsay wrote in judgement that Mr Llewellyn was described as being “exploitative” by Mr Rofe’s closest associates who often played on the deceased barrister’s susceptibility to flattery and often made “dramatic threats of suicide” or threats to “out him” as a homosexual man if he did not get his own way with the deceased, which at some point included his presence in Mr Rofe’s will.
Justice Lindsay added that while Mr Llewellyn admitted that he had a pattern of bad behaviour, this was chalked up to his bipolar diagnosis. He added that the younger man had told a friend of Mr Rofe that he “knew what buttons to press to get what he wanted”, and Mr Llewellyn confirmed as much during cross-examination.
“Mr Llewelyn’s medical condition may help to explain the deceased’s forbearance in dealing with the younger man and his concern to make some testamentary provision for him, knowing both the younger man’s ill health and his poor employment record and prospects,” Justice Lindsay said. “Nevertheless, close friends of Mr Rofe wondered if Mr Llewellyn had something over him. It was an unusual relationship.”
Mr Llewellyn was said to be a great “source of anxiety” for Mr Rofe, both financially and in his threats. A turning point in Mr Rofe’s later life occurred when Mr Llewellyn was restricted from seeing him, which in turn created a “much more stable domestic environment” in which Mr Rofe’s financial assets were managed by an accountant.
Also vying for part of Mr Rofe’s estate is controversial figure Kathy Jackson, the former national secretary of the Health Services Union who was found to have misappropriated funds and ordered to repay $1.4 million in compensation. She may receive more than $3 million from Mr Rofe’s estate, likely in the next few months.
Mr Rofe was introduced to Ms Jackson through equally controversial broadcaster Alan Jones. They met shortly after Ms Jackson’s trial and both shared a common sense of isolation and a “common need for companionship”. As such, Ms Jackson stepped in to care for him and to manage his administrative affairs when needed.
To her credit, Mr Rofe’s nephews and nieces bar one were often supportive of her in the proceedings, having created a “faction” of sorts that separated her from Mr Llewellyn and a lone nephew. Justice Lindsay wrote that Ms Jackson was privately told by Mr Rofe that he was being “blackmailed” by Mr Llewellyn prior to 2014.
Ms Jackson was also known to have encouraged Mr Rofe to use the services of a solicitor in drafting wills, despite Mr Rofe’s disdain for professional assistance.
A number of other partners may receive a large part of Mr Rofe’s estate, including a former partner of 20 years who had moved from Melbourne to Sydney near the end of Mr Rofe’s life to care for him and ensure that he was receiving proper medication. This friend was in regular contact with others about Mr Rofe’s health, which formed part of the court’s decision on whether his December 2014 will would be valid.
Subject to allowing all parties to make submissions, Justice Lindsay made an order that the December 2014 will is admitted to probate in solemn form. The proceedings will be brought back before Justice Lindsay in late April for further consideration.
More to come.
This judgement can be found on AustLII: Estate Rofe [2021] NSWSC 257 (12 April 2021).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
