JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 December 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 294
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM:	Ghosh v Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, John Dixon J, 14 September 2023); Ghosh v Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, O’Meara J, 19 March 2024); [2024] VSC 259 (O’Meara J); Ghosh v Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Quigley J, 14 November 2024)

---

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE – Appeal – Applications for leave to appeal procedural orders – Application for leave to appeal substantive orders – Whether trial judge erred in granting probate of copy will – Whether trial judge erred in passing over one of two executors – Whether trial judge erred in making orders for production of documents and inspection of books of company – Whether other judges erred in making procedural orders – Whether any injustice in leaving procedural orders unreversed – Bias – Whether any orders affected by racial, cultural or apparent bias – Application for leave to appeal from judge’s orders directing Prothonotary not to accept for filing proposed notices of appeal from procedural orders made by associate justices – 81 proposed grounds of appeal – Proposed grounds of appeal devoid of merit – Proposed appeals having no prospects of success – Applications for leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		Ms E Julian, solicitor
Solicitors
Applicant:
Respondent:	Shiff & Company Lawyers

BEACH JA:

Neelanjan Ghosh (‘the applicant’) and Anaban Ghosh (‘the respondent’) are brothers. They have been in dispute since at least the death of their mother, Aroti Ghosh (‘the mother’ or ‘the deceased’), on 9 June 2022. Their disputes have concerned, amongst other things, the circumstances of their mother’s death; the existence and terms of their mother’s will; the existence and terms of the will of their father, Biswanath Ghosh, who died 10 years earlier, on 14 February 2012; their mother’s estate; the Ghosh Superannuation Fund; and the shares in, and assets of, Ghosh Enterprises Pty Ltd (‘Ghosh Enterprises’). Their disputes have occupied a considerable amount of judicial time at all levels of the judicial hierarchy.[1]
[1]See for example Re Ghosh [2022] VSC 410 (Gorton J) (‘Practice Court Reasons’); Re Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Moore J, 4 August 2022); Ghosh v Ghosh [2023] VSCA 77 (J Forrest AJA) (‘First Appeal Reasons’); Ghosh v Ghosh [2023] HCASL 171 (Edelman and Gleeson JJ); Ghosh v Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Keith JR, 3 February 2023); Ghosh v Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, John Dixon J, 14 September 2023) (‘Procedure Reasons’); Re the Will and Estate of Aroti Ghosh [2024] VSC 75 (Barrett AsJ) (‘Barrett AsJ Reasons’); Re the Will and Estate of Aroti Ghosh (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Goulden AsJ, 7 March 2024) (‘Goulden AsJ Reasons’); Ghosh v Ghosh [2024] VSC…

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 Ghosh v Ghosh

Details

AGLC: Ghosh v Ghosh [2024] VSCA 294
Case: [2024] VSCA 294
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ghosh v Ghosh, the appellant sought to appeal several procedural and substantive orders made by the trial judge. The dispute involved the interpretation and execution of a will, with the appellant challenging the trial judge's decision to grant probate of a copy will, to appoint one executor over another, and to make orders for the production of documents and inspection of company books. The appellant also contested procedural orders made by associate justices and sought to appeal from the judge's orders preventing the Prothonotary from accepting notices of appeal from those procedural orders.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in their interpretation of the will and in appointing one executor over another. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge's orders for the production of documents and inspection of company books were appropriate. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any procedural orders made by associate justices were erroneous and whether any bias, including racial, cultural, or apparent bias, influenced these orders. Lastly, the court examined whether there was any injustice in leaving the procedural orders unreversed and whether the proposed grounds of appeal had merit or prospects of success.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in their interpretation of the will or in appointing one executor over another. The orders for the production of documents and inspection of company books were deemed appropriate. The court also determined that there was no bias influencing the orders and that there was no injustice in leaving the procedural orders unreversed. The proposed grounds of appeal were found to be devoid of merit and lacking in prospects of success. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were refused.

No further orders were made by the court, as the applications for leave to appeal were denied on the basis of the findings outlined above.

Orders