Antoun v Antoun (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 1331

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Antoun v Antoun (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1331
Hearing dates: 18 October 2021
Date of orders: 20 October 2021
Decision date: 18 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Parker J
Decision:
See [21]

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – family provision – application by plaintiffs for inspection of file produced by Federal Circuit Court – previous orders of the Court granting access to plaintiffs to limited documents in file – whether changed circumstances justify granting access to further documents

Cases Cited:
Antoun v Antoun [2020] NSWSC 860
Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2002] NSWSC 973

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Tarnya Sara Alexis Antoun (First Applicant/First Plaintiff)
Tamara Antoun (Second Applicant/Second Plaintiff)
Angelique Antoun (First Respondent/First Defendant)
Ashleigh Antoun (Second Respondent/Second Defendant)
Joseph Hanna (Third Respondent/Third Defendant)
Mary Antoun (Fourth Respondent)
Representation:
Appearances:
M Pringle (Counsel) (First and Second Applicants/First and Second Plaintiffs)
V Schlueter (Solicitor Advocate) (Third Respondent/Third Defendant)
M Antoun (In Person) (Fourth Respondent)
Solicitors:
Fimmano Lawyers (First and Second Applicants/First and Second Plaintiffs)
Conceptual Legal Pty Limited (Third Respondent/Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/118417
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

18 October 2021 (revised from transcript; issued 20 October 2021):

Before the Court is an interlocutory application in family provision proceedings. The plaintiffs seek access to a file of the Federal Circuit Court which has been produced to this Court pursuant to arrangements between this Court and the Federal Circuit Court.
The principal proceedings concern the estate of the late Antoine Antoun who died in July 2018. For convenience and without disrespect, I will refer to the members of the deceased's family who come into this judgment by their given names.
The deceased was married twice. By his first marriage, which ended in divorce, he had two daughters, Tarnya and Tamara. He then married his second wife, Mary. The deceased and Mary had two daughters, Angelique and Ashleigh.
The deceased's marriage to Mary also ended in divorce shortly before his death. The Federal Circuit Court proceedings to which I have referred were proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage of the deceased and Mary and for the division of their property.
The present proceedings were commenced in 2019. The plaintiffs are the deceased's daughters by his first marriage, Tarnya and Tamara. They seek provision out of the deceased's estate. This is because under the deceased's will his estate passed to his daughters from his second marriage, Angelique and Ashleigh. Angelique and Ashleigh are the first and second defendants.
The Federal Circuit Court file was produced to the Court in early 2020. It has already been the subject of an application concerning access which was dealt with by Hallen J on 6 July last year: Antoun v Antoun [2020] NSWSC 860. In the course of his judgment, his Honour summarised the procedural history to that point. Relevantly for present purposes, his Honour recorded that in November 2019, as a result of the failure by Angelique and Ashleigh to defend the proceedings, an independent solicitor, Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Antoun v Antoun (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Antoun v Antoun (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1331
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1331
Decision Date: 18 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Antoun and Antoun, applied to the Family Court for an order that would allow them to inspect the file produced by the Federal Circuit Court in a family provision matter. This was a continuation of previous proceedings in which the plaintiffs had sought access to the file. The application was heard by the Family Court, with Chief Justice Hulme presiding. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant granting the plaintiffs access to further documents in the file.

The court considered that the plaintiffs had already been granted access to some documents in the file, which had been limited by the Federal Circuit Court. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not provided any new evidence or argument to support their application. The court found that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the previous order was made, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a compelling need for access to the additional documents. The court held that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold for changing the existing orders, and dismissed the application.

The court emphasised that the decision to grant access to documents in a family provision matter should be guided by the principles of fairness and the needs of the case. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided any new evidence or argument to support their application, and that the existing orders were sufficient to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly. The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a compelling need for access to the additional documents, and that the existing orders should be maintained. The court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.

Orders