Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock - [2025] NSWSC 232

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock [2025] NSWSC 232
Hearing dates: 18, 19 March 2025
Date of orders: 19 March 2025
Decision date: 19 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Family Provision
Before: Meek J
Decision:
Orders finalising family provision proceedings made.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Consent orders — Parties presented consent orders to the Court — Following requisitions to address jurisdictional and other aspects of the orders, a precursor email was sent by the Associate to the List Judge inviting parties to consider and respond to a final form of proposed orders — The respective plaintiff solicitors responded approving the orders but no response was received from the defendant’s solicitors — Court-initiated follow-up of the parties three months after the precursor email revealed for the first time a contentious issue regarding the orders was vexing the parties but not disclosed to the Court — Consequent upon listing of the matters, it transpired that a reason for the nondisclosure arose from a misapprehension regarding what was appropriate by way of communication with the Court — Final orders subsequently and expeditiously made
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — The duty to assist the Court to further the overriding purpose of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings endures to the final conclusion of the proceedings and not merely to a point where the parties have settled the proceedings in principle but final orders have not been entered
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Principles regarding email communications with judges’ chambers — Legal practitioners are not precluded from alerting a judge by correspondence to the Associate, copied to all other legal practitioners for active parties, that there is dispute between the parties as to orders and to request for the matter to be relisted so that any such contentious matters can be addressed in open court

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Alcan Australia Ltd v Geraghty (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 8 October 1993, BC9302153, unrep)
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 51; [2000] NSWSC 338
Jurak v Latham [2023] NSWSC 1318
Reeves v Reeves [2024] NSWSC 134
Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Limited (in liquidation) [No 2] [2013] NSWSC 1971

Texts Cited:
St Augustine, In Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos (AD 413)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Therese Grigor (Plaintiff in 2024/29916)
Stephen Stock (Plaintiff in 2024/109084)
Nathan Stock (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Robson (Plaintiff in 2024/29916)
H Morrison (Plaintiff in 2024/109084)
A Flick (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Rose Litigation Lawyers (Plaintiff in 2024/29916)
Gamble Law and Estate Planning (Plaintiff in 2024/109084)
SP Garrett Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/29916 and 2024/109084

JUDGMENT

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: Clear communication is essential to human existence and flourishing. Motives for the decision to speak or not are likewise vital. St Augustine recognised this in stating “If you are silent, be silent…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 232
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock involved family provision proceedings, where the court was asked to decide on the final orders following consent orders presented by the parties. The court was faced with ensuring that all contentious issues were properly disclosed and addressed before final orders were made. The legal issues before the court centred on the duty of legal practitioners to assist the court in achieving a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings, even after the parties had settled in principle. Additionally, the case raised questions about the appropriate use of email communications with judges' chambers, particularly in alerting the court to disputes between parties regarding the proposed orders.

The court emphasised the enduring duty of legal practitioners to assist in achieving the overriding purpose of the proceedings, even at the final stage of making orders. This duty was not limited to the point where the parties had settled in principle but extended to the final conclusion of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court underscored that legal practitioners were not precluded from using email communications with judges' chambers to alert the court to disputes between the parties regarding the proposed orders and to request that the matter be relisted so that any contentious matters could be addressed in open court.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the parties had presented consent orders, and the court had initiated follow-up to ensure all issues were resolved. The court found that while the plaintiffs' solicitors had responded approving the orders, no response was received from the defendant's solicitors. After further correspondence and a relisting of the matter, it was revealed that the parties had a contentious issue regarding the orders which had not been disclosed to the court. The court concluded that the reason for the nondisclosure arose from a misapprehension regarding the appropriate communication with the court. The court ultimately made the final orders expeditiously.

The final orders were made, reflecting the court's emphasis on the importance of all parties fulfilling their duty to assist the court in achieving a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the proceedings. The court's decision also highlighted the need for clear and appropriate communication between the parties and the court, particularly when contentious issues arise regarding the proposed orders.

Orders