Re Estate Grundy (No. 2) - [2018] NSWSC 1495

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Estate Grundy (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1495
Hearing dates: 5 October 2018
Date of orders: 05 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
Order that the first defendant produce to the plaintiff documents described by reference to particular categories.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discovery — Classes or categories of documents – Whether a proper forensic purpose has been identified – Discovery limited by nature of proceedings and considerations of reasonableness – Discovery granted
SUCCESSION - Family provision and maintenance – Practice – Adequacy of disclosure by executor – Application for further discovery
Legislation Cited: Practice Note SC Eq 7
Succession Act 2006 NSW
Cases Cited: Estate Grundy; La Valette v Chambers-Grundy [2018] NSWSC 104
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Viola La Valette
First Defendant: Carolyn Joy Chambers-Grundy
Second Defendant: Artworld Ltd
Third Defendant: RG Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd
ACN 001 016 146
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: MK Meek SC and D Barlin
Defendants: RJ May
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Roberts and Partners
Defendants: Diamond Conway

File Number(s): 2017/00127105

Judgment

In reasons for judgment published on 15 February 2018 as Estate Grundy; La Valette v Chambers-Grundy [2018] NSWSC 104, I outlined: (a) the nature of the principal proceedings before the Court; and (b) disputation between the parties about the nature and extent of, and compliance with, the first defendant’s disclosure obligations as executrix of the estate of the late Reg Grundy in proceedings brought by the plaintiff (his daughter) for family provision relief under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW. The first defendant is the widow of the deceased, the step-mother of the plaintiff.
On 15 February 2018, for reasons set out in that judgment, I made orders for disclosure of documents by the first defendant.
Skirmishing about the adequacy of the first defendant’s disclosure of documentation has continued, in fits and starts, since that time.
An all-day mediation conducted by the Honourable PA Bergin SC on 31 July 2018 failed to resolve the proceedings; or to extinguish ongoing battles about disclosure, despite the preparedness of the first defendant to provide documentation beyond that earlier provided.
On 21 September 2018 the first defendant submitted to an order of the Court to the effect that she be examined regarding the sufficiency of her disclosure, in her administrator’s affidavits, purportedly in compliance with paragraphs 9.1(b)-(f) and (h)(iv) of Practice Note SC Eq 7 pursuant to order 5 of the orders made on 15 February 2018, in light of the affidavits sworn by her on 17 May 2018 and 7 June 2018 and Exhibits CJCG2 and CJCG3 to those affidavits.
A date for that examination to take place has yet to be appointed. The parties’ inquiries of the Registry indicate that it is likely to occur sometime early next year.
In anticipation of that event, the first defendant has agreed to provide additional documentation sought by the plaintiff; and the parties have joined…

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 Re Estate Grundy (No. 2) 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: [2018] NSWSC 1495
Decision Date: 05 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Estate Grundy (No. 2) involved an application for further discovery by the applicant, the beneficiary of a will, against the executor of the estate of Grundy. The dispute arose from a family provision and maintenance application, where the beneficiary sought additional information to support their claim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant had identified a proper forensic purpose for the sought-after documents. The executor argued that the applicant had not sufficiently justified the need for further discovery, given the nature of the proceedings and considerations of reasonableness. The court also needed to determine whether the disclosure provided by the executor was adequate and if the applicant's request for further discovery was warranted.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant had indeed identified a proper forensic purpose for the additional discovery. The court held that the nature of the family provision and maintenance application required thorough investigation, and the applicant's request was reasonable given the circumstances. The court noted that the executor's disclosure, while extensive, did not fully address the issues raised by the applicant. Consequently, the court granted the application for further discovery, directing the executor to provide the requested documents within a specified timeframe.

The final orders of the court mandated that the executor provide the additional documents within fourteen days of the judgment. This decision underscored the importance of adequate disclosure in family provision and maintenance applications and highlighted the court's willingness to grant further discovery when necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter.

Orders