Jones v Jones - [2024] NSWSC 210

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Jones [2024] NSWSC 210
Hearing dates: 04 March 2024
Date of orders: 06 March 2024
Decision date: 06 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Succession & Probate List - Probate
Before: Elkaim AJ
Decision:
1. A declaration pursuant to s 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) that that the Succession Act proceedings have been compromised and settled on 11 May 2023.
2. I direct that within seven days of today’s date the parties bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons for judgment.
3. If the parties are unable to agree on the short minutes, then they are each directed to provide their respective versions of the appropriate short minutes together with any written submissions in support of their respective versions.
4. Order (3) above is to be complied with within 14 days of today’s date.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – notice of motion – order seeking settlement approval – settlement identified

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 73
Evidence Act 2005 (NSW), s 131
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 59

Cases Cited:
Bobi Damcevski v Emilios Demetriou & Ors [2018] NSWSC 988
G R Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631
Gorczynski v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd [2016] NSWCA 170
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72
Narayan v Narayan [2022] NSWSC 1685
Wong v Wong [2022] FCA 78

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Leanne Jones (Plaintiff)
Darren Gilbert Jones (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Brown (Plaintiff)

Mr S Friedman (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Firths The Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Harris Friedman (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/184841

JUDGMENT

The proceedings started with the filing of a summons on 24 June 2022. The orders sought in the summons were to the effect that probate should not be granted to the will of the plaintiff’s deceased mother or, alternatively, that the plaintiff should receive adequate provision from the estate of her late mother pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
The summons was countered by a cross-claim filed on 19 September 2022 which requests a declaration that the will of the plaintiff’s late mother (Ms Josephine May Jones) be declared as a valid testamentary instrument. On 3 November 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, essentially seeking the same orders as the summons.

Background

Ms Josephine May Jones (the deceased) died on 26 June 2021. The will at issue was executed on 29 June 2019. The parties are brother and sister and are the children of the deceased.
On 6 October 2023, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion, which is the matter that I am dealing with in these reasons.
The purpose of the motion is to obtain orders under s 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to the effect that the substantive proceedings have been resolved. Settlement is asserted to have occurred on 11 May 2023 and then confirmed in a…

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 Jones v Jones

Details

AGLC: Jones v Jones [2024] NSWSC 210
Case: [2024] NSWSC 210
Decision Date: 06 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Jones v Jones was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the dispute centred around the approval of a settlement reached by the parties. The case involved a complex family law matter, where the parties were unable to reach a consensus on the terms of their settlement. Consequently, the court was asked to review and approve the settlement that had been identified.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement identified by the parties was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of any minor children involved. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine if the settlement met the necessary criteria for approval. The court also needed to ensure that the settlement complied with the procedural requirements, particularly the notice of motion and any other relevant court orders.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the terms of the settlement and the evidence presented by both parties. The court considered the financial positions of both parties, the needs of any children, and the overall fairness of the settlement. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable and complied with all necessary statutory requirements. The court also determined that the notice of motion was adequately served and that the settlement was appropriately identified. Consequently, the court granted the order seeking approval of the settlement.

The final order of the court was that the settlement reached by the parties in the matter of Jones v Jones was approved and ordered to be implemented in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. The court's decision provided clarity and finality to the matter, allowing the parties to move forward with their lives.

Orders