Budniak v NSW Trustee and Guardian

[2019] NSWSC 237

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Budniak v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2019] NSWSC 237

Hearing dates:

1 March 2019

Date of orders:

01 March 2019

Decision date:

01 March 2019

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

N Adams J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to UCPR 22.1 the defendant is to provide verified answers by 15 April 2019 to the interrogatories set out in annexure A of the plaintiff’s notice of motion as amended.

 

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the motion.

 (3) The matter is listed for directions before the Common Law Registrar on Wednesday, 24 April 2019.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – notice of motion – claim that defendant owed duty to take reasonable care to give effect to deceased’s testamentary intention – application for verified answers to interrogatories as to deceased’s testamentary intention – whether professional negligence proceedings “a claim for damages arising out of the death of, or bodily injury to a person” – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1(3)(a) – whether purpose of interrogatories was for preparation of an expert report – whether interrogatories necessary

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 22.1
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 91

Cases Cited:

The Estate of Stanislaw Budniak; NSW Trustee and Guardian v Budniak [2015] NSWSC 934
El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623
Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Boulton; Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Lynjoe Pty Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 735
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 91 ALJR 936
Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1992
In the matter of Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd – Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 241
Edwards v Hornsby Shire Council [2014] NSWSC 600

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Tomasz Budniak (Plaintiff)
NSW Trustee and Guardian

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr H Chiu (Plaintiff)
Mr C Tam (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Mitchell Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Teece Hodgson and Ward Solicitors

File Number(s):

2018/66675

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment (revised from ex tempore)

1. By notice of motion filed on 17 December 2018 the plaintiffs seek an order pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW) r 22.1 that the defendant provide verified answers to the interrogatories annexed to the notice of motion within six weeks. The plaintiffs also seek that the defendant pay his costs of the motion.

2. By amended statement of claim filed on 13 September 2018, the first and second plaintiffs, Tomasz Budniak and Benjamin Budniak, by his tutor Tomasz Budniak, claim damages (plus interest and costs) against the defendant, the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian. The plaintiffs claim that in preparing respectively their late father and grandfather, Stanislaw Budniak's will, the defendant owed the deceased and them a duty to take reasonable care to give effect to the deceased's testamentary intention, which was to confer his testamentary benefit on them as the intended beneficiaries of the will.

Background

3. The first plaintiff is one of five children of the late Mr Budniak, who I will refer to as "the deceased". As I have already indicated, the second plaintiff is the first plaintiff's son. The deceased died in 2011 aged 89 years.

4. In 2007 the deceased approached the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian and requested that they prepare a will for him. The first approach was in May 2007, at which time a solicitor employed by the defendant, Mr Matthew Kennedy, took instructions from the deceased. Later in October 2007 the deceased returned to execute the will, at which time another employee, Mr Mohammed, was present when the will was executed. Two years later, the deceased met with another employee of the defendant, Ulrike Scarlett, to discuss a power of attorney.

5. When the deceased died, the defendant sought probate of the will, but it was challenged by the first plaintiff’s siblings, who claimed that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time. In a previous will executed by the deceased in 1994, the property had been left equally among his five children.

6. The New South Wales Trustee and Guardian commenced probate proceedings by a statement of claim filed on 9 November 2012, with an amended statement of claim filed on 12 June 2013. Those proceedings were decided by Hallen J in The Estate ofStanislaw Budniak; NSW Trustee and Guardian v Budniak [2015] NSWSC 934. Relevantly, his Honour held that on the evidence he was unable to find that the deceased had testamentary capacity, or that he knew and approved of the terms of the 2007 will. In arriving at that conclusion, his Honour made a number of criticisms of the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian as to the making of the 2007 will, and the steps it took to ascertain the deceased's testamentary capacity and knowledge of the 2007 will at the time it was being made. Those observations by his Honour are at [406] to [468] of that judgment.

7. His Honour held that there could not be a grant of probate in solemn form of the 2007 will and instead there should be grant of probate of an earlier 1994 document, in which the estate was shared among the five children of the deceased.

The Relevant Rules

8. UCPR r 22.1 provides:

“22.1 Interrogatories (cf SCR Part 24, rules 1–6; DCR Part 22A, rules 1–6)

(1) At any stage of the proceedings, the court may order any party to answer specified interrogatories.

(2) An application for such an order must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed interrogatories.

(3) In the case of proceedings on:

(a) a claim for damages arising out of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person, or

(b) a claim for contribution in relation to damages so arising,

such an order is not to be made unless the court is satisfied that special reasons exist that justify the making of the order.

(4) In any case, such an order is not to be made unless the court is satisfied that the order is necessary at the time it is made.

(5) An order to answer interrogatories:

(a) may require the answers to be given within a specified time, and

(b) may require the answers, or any of them, to be verified by affidavit, and

(c) in circumstances in which rule 35.3 authorises someone other than the party to whom the order is addressed to make the relevant affidavit, may specify the person to make the affidavit, or the persons from whom the person to make the affidavit may be chosen, in relation to the interrogatories or any of them.”

The Draft Interrogatories

9. The plaintiff seeks interrogatories grouped in five separate categories.

10. The first category is directed to the relevant policy and procedures and practice in place at the defendant in 2007 (questions 1 to 8).

11. The second category (questions 9 to 17) is directed to the taking of initial instructions from the deceased in May 2007, with a particular focus on a meeting that the deceased apparently had with Mr Kennedy. Mr Kennedy provided two affidavits in the proceedings before Hallen J dated 23 March 2013 and 20 November 2013, respectively, which were read in those proceedings and the interrogatories have been prepared on the basis of those affidavits.

12. The third category (questions 25 to 31) is directed to the taking of final instructions from the deceased in October 2007 by Mr Mohammed. Again, the basis for those questions is the affidavit of Mr Mohammed, sworn 17 October 2013, which was read in the proceedings before Hallen J.

13. The fourth category (questions 18 to 24) is directed to any observations made by Ms Scarlett who was an employee of the defendant at the time, as to the deceased's capacity and understanding of his financial affairs when she met with the deceased in August 2007. Ms Scarlett also had her affidavit, sworn on 25 September 2013, read in the proceedings before Hallen J.

14. The fifth and final category of interrogatories (questions 32 to 34) is directed to the plaintiff's alternative damages case, namely, the diminution of the deceased's estate after the 2007 will was disputed

The Parties' Submissions

15. The parties made detailed submissions, both in writing and orally, in favour of and against the order proposed, as well as to particular interrogatories. Although I will set out the position of the parties in broad terms, I do not propose to refer to all of the submissions made in these reasons. In any event, the respective arguments should be apparent from the conclusions I have reached.

The Position of the Defendant

16. Counsel for the defendant opposed the order sought on a number of bases. First, it was argued that the relevant test applicable in this case is that under UCPR r 22.1(3), as the fact that the proceedings are "a claim for damages arising out of the death of, or bodily injury to a person", means the order is not to be made unless the Court is satisfied that special reasons exist that justify the making of the order. It was submitted that no such special reasons exist. It was submitted that if the plaintiffs are in any position of disability or disadvantage, it is of their own making and borne of the conceptual challenges that the plaintiffs have decided to take on.

17. The defendant in his written submissions relied upon principles of statutory construction in support of his argument, to which I will refer again.

18. If the primary submission of the defendant was not accepted by the Court, the defendant's alternate position was that, consistent with the test under UCPR r 22.1(4) the order is not necessary at this time. It was submitted that if, as the plaintiff contends, the test for necessity is simply whether they are useful, then answers to interrogatories almost always would be ordered. Reliance was placed on the observations of Adamson J in El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623 at [5] and [6].

19. It was further argued that if the purpose of the interrogatories was for the preparation of an expert report, then, consistent with the decision of Young J in Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Boulton; Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd V Lynjoe Pty Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 735, the evidence would not assist in any event.

20. The third opposition to the orders is that on a one by one basis, most of them were objected to on bases including form, necessity, oppression and whether alternate procedures are more suitable.

The Response of the Plaintiff

21. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was submitted that these proceedings do not arise out of "a claim for damages, out of the death of or bodily injury to any person" and thus the relevant test is one of necessity. Even if the Court was to accept that the higher test applied, that test could be satisfied on the facts of this case in any event.

What is the Appropriate Test?

22. I cannot accept the defendant's submission that a claim of professional negligence arising out of the writing of a will is a proceeding on a claim for damages arising out of the death or bodily injury to a person. The claim for damages does not arise out of the death of the deceased, although his death is a relevant event that gave rise to the need to seek probate in relation to the 2007 will. The defendant relied upon principles of statutory construction to argue that the phrase "arising out of" takes its meaning from its context. In his written submissions Mr Tam submitted that the requirement for special reasons reveals a legislative intent to impose restraints on the availability of interrogatories in particular cases. It was further submitted that the phrase "arising out of" takes its meaning from context and is synonymous with the expression "in connection with", because of the rational connection between the limitation and the statutory directive.

23. It is to be accepted that on principles of statutory construction, context is of significance. However, as was emphasised by the plurality in SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 91 ALJR 936 at [14] per Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ, the starting point for ascertaining the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute, whilst at the same time having regard to its context and purpose. Considerations of context simply recognise that, understood in its statutory historical or other context, some other meaning of a word may be suggested. It is important for the purposes of the present exercise of construction, to have regard to the text of the statute first.

24. Consistent with these established principles of statutory construction, I have had regard to the text of UCPR r 22.1(3). It refers to claims for damages arising out of the death or personal bodily injury to a person. The plain meaning of the word is that the claim for damages in personal injury claims, whether or not death has occurred, is in a different category to other litigation.

25. I am thus satisfied that the appropriate test to apply is that of whether these interrogatories are necessary.

Are the Interrogatories Necessary?

26. The parties relied upon a number of authorities from which the relevant principles can be derived. As Adamson J observed in El-Mouelhy v Reid in the paragraph I have already referred to above:

“The UCPR contain a number of forensic tools, which are to be selected by practitioners by reference to their suitability for the task required of them. A similar assessment of the suitability of the procedure is performed by the court where leave is required by the UCPR. Interrogatories fulfil important forensic purposes. They enable, as in the present case, a plaintiff who was anaesthetised at the time of surgery, to obtain sworn admissions from the person who performed the surgery (the defendant) as to what occurred and as to why he did particular things. Interrogatories are not, however, a substitute for other forensic procedures. The wording of UCPR 22.1(4) makes it clear that interrogatories are not to be ordered where other means could more readily be used, since they would not, in that event, be “necessary”. While it would overstate matters to describe interrogatories as a procedure of last resort, the requirement of necessity is an important qualifier to the court’s power to order them. Although it may be more efficient for a plaintiff to proceed by obtaining admissions through interrogatories, the appropriateness of interrogatories is not to be determined solely, or even largely, by the convenience of one party or another.”

27. In Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1992 McCallum J observed the following at paragraphs [45] to [48]:

“[45] The circumstances in which the Court should grant leave to a party to administer interrogatories are addressed in Part 22 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and clause 18(c) of the Practice Note. The test is whether the interrogatories are necessary for the resolution of the real issues in dispute in the proceedings.

[46] An aspect of the test of necessity is the utility the interrogatories will have in serving the (necessary) object of deploying the court’s resources efficiently. The potential utility of interrogatories was explained by Simpson J (as her Honour then was) in Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 587 at [14]-[16], as follows:

“[14] It may of use if I state the approach to the administration of interrogatories which I consider to be appropriate. In my opinion interrogatories can serve a very useful purpose, sometimes a purpose which is not, at the hearing, visible. The questions asked or the answers given may alert the interrogated party to an issue, or may deter persistence of either party in a course that party might otherwise have taken. In these cases, the benefits of the process of interrogation might not be immediately apparent to anybody other than the parties or their legal representatives. It may not be apparent to the judge hearing the case.

[15] Further, in some cases a single interrogatory might obviate the need to call one witness, or a number of witnesses, or to produce documentary or other material, in order to establish a particular relevant fact. In this way, considerable costs and inconvenience might be saved. For these reasons, and despite the contrary views expressed by some others, I am of the view that the odium in which the interrogative process is held in some quarters is not justified by the process itself. It may be that it is justified by the misuse or abuse of a valuable piece of equipment in the armoury of litigators.

[16] That I perceive considerable value in the availability of the process of interrogation is not to say that carte blanche should be given to parties wishing to interrogate, particularly where the volume of interrogatories is oppressive or potentially so. Nor is it to say that every interrogatory administered by one party to another will be required to be answered. To be useful, interrogatories must be properly directed to the issues identified after a proper process of pleading, and after full and proper particulars have been supplied. When this occurs interrogatories can do much to narrow the issues actually to be fought, and the scope of the evidence required to be adduced. But it is to be emphasised that this involves a sensible approach to the drafting of interrogatories. The drafter must have both eyes firmly fixed on the issues thrown up by the pleadings. To be useful, interrogatories must be specific to those issues.’

[47] I indicated my agreement with those remarks in Mooney v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1933 at [18] and Creak v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 213 at [22].

[48] I am satisfied that, in the circumstances of the present case, where the plaintiff is self-represented and there are many factual issues, a large number of which may not be in dispute, the interrogatories prepared by the defendants will have considerable utility for the parties and the Court in narrowing the issues in dispute and facilitating the efficient use of court time. Accordingly, I propose to direct the plaintiff to answer the defendants’ interrogatories.”

28. I have also had regard to the decision of Ward J In the matter ofGerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd – Cassegrain v Gerrard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 241 at 27 and 31; and the decision of Schmidt J in Edwards v Hornsby Shire Council [2014] NSWSC 600 at [16] to [18].

29. The defendant, in its defence to the amended statement of claim, positively pleads that at the time the 2007 will was made, the defendant was satisfied that the deceased had testamentary capacity and had approved of its contents. It pleads that it was unnecessary for the defendant to take the precaution it is said it failed to take, because of other specified steps the defendant did take, to satisfy itself that the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved the contents of the 2007 will.

30. In light of this defence, the question arises as to what the defendant did in the process of taking instructions from the deceased and in preparing the 2007 will and how it was that, through its employees, it satisfied itself that the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of the 2007 will.

31. On behalf of the defendant, Mr Tam submitted that the interrogatories were not necessary, because they were to brief an expert. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has the relevant information in any event from the affidavits and other documents filed in the proceedings before Hallen J. It was further submitted that the plaintiff's case depends on persuading the Court of a counterfactual, namely, that had the defendant done its job correctly, it would have successfully persuaded Hallen J that the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of the 2007 will. It was submitted that the expert evidence will be only one of many factors which will be relevant to that issue and in that regard it was submitted the expert’s report is not of significant importance.

32. Mr Chiu responded to this by submitting that the answers to the interrogatories are necessary for three reasons: to establish what happened; to establish the likely departure from good practice; and also to address the question of causation. It was submitted that the plaintiff needs admissible facts and that there are two problems facing the plaintiff with respect to briefing an expert on the current state of the plaintiff's knowledge. First, the current assumptions cannot be proved, and second, the plaintiff needs to know what happened in order to brief the expert. A further factor relied upon is that there may well be other evidence which could have persuaded a judge otherwise than was concluded by Hallen J, and the plaintiff seeks to ascertain that as well.

28. I am satisfied that all of the interrogatories that were ultimately pressed are necessary. Although Hallen J has already made relevant findings as to issues in dispute in this matter, the plaintiffs cannot rely upon those findings by virtue of the operation of s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and nor can the plaintiffs rely upon the affidavits filed in the earlier proceedings, unless leave is granted to do so. Although there is evidence arising from those proceedings which may assist the plaintiff, that evidence is not currently admissible.

The Categories of Interrogatories

34. Turning to the categories of interrogatories sought by the plaintiff, and the specific objections to them, a number of specific submissions were made before me. As I have already indicated, I do not consider it necessary to address the objections to each of the 34 interrogatories separately, although I note that there was no objection to answering questions 31 to 34 and the plaintiff did not press interrogatories 9 and 17. In relation to interrogatories 2, 11, 12, and 20 to 29, amendments were made such that the word "understanding" was substituted for the word "belief", but otherwise I was satisfied that the objections made on behalf of the defendant were not made out.

35. A number of those objections, in general form, had been on the basis that the interrogatories were not necessary because the material was available in the proceedings before Hallen J. Given my finding in relation to that issue, the objections to a number of the particular interrogatories fell away.

36. The plaintiff will email my Associate with a copy of proposed interrogatories consistent with my orders

37. The plaintiff has been successful in its motion. Although there is a discretion in the Court in relation to the awarding of costs, the usual course is that costs follow the event. Nothing was put to me to provide a basis to depart from that general practice and thus the defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

**********

Amendments

08 March 2019 - [2] "Tomasz" instead of "Thomasz"

Decision last updated: 08 March 2019