Sadri v Samian (No 2) - [2009] VSC 354

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6652 of 2006

SEPIDEH SADRI	Plaintiff
v
ALI REZA SAMIAN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HANSEN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 June 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sadri v Samian (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 354

---

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE – Uncertainty as to value of estate – Previous order that executor adduce further evidence on two properties arguably estate assets – Insufficiency of evidence – Need for further evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Perkins	David Perkins
The Defendant appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff and her two brothers are the beneficiaries of a trust created by their late mother, Mona Samian (“the deceased”) who died on 2 June 2004. The defendant is the brother of the deceased and the executor of her estate. Following a hearing last year, on 26 March 2009 I gave judgment[1] upholding the plaintiff’s claim (which was actually not disputed by the defendant) that the deceased was, both prior to and at the time of her death, in breach of a trust she had created in favour of her children.
[1][2009] VSC 99. That judgment should be read in conjunction with the present judgment.

Although the plaintiff claimed a raft of relief, including declarations of breach of trust, orders for the reimbursement of trust money and orders for an accounting by the defendant, in his final address at the hearing last year the plaintiff’s counsel sought only orders for the taking of accounts in order that the financial position be clarified with a view to then considering the ultimate relief.

For reasons set out in my first judgment, I did not then make a general order for accounts and inquiries as the plaintiff sought, as such orders seemed to me to be unwarranted by the evidence and unjustifiable in terms of cost. Rather, in circumstances where a question was raised as to whether the estate was solvent, and the answer to that question seemed to depend on the value of two assets which were, or probably were, part of the estate, namely the Southbank unit and the Iranian land, I considered that further evidence was required as to those two assets.

I made orders adjourning the further hearing of the proceeding to 5 June 2009 for the purpose of the Court receiving evidence on:

(a)The market value of the Southbank unit and the amount owing thereon, including the contract of purchase by the deceased and any financing documents, at the date of death and six months thereafter; and
(b)The deceased’s ownership of the Iranian land, including documents pertaining to its sale, the receipt and disposition of the proceeds of sale, and the law of Iran relating thereto.

I ordered that evidence at the hearing be on affidavit with a right of cross-examination, that the defendant file and serve an affidavit or affidavits…

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 Sadri v Samian (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Sadri v Samian (No 2) [2009] VSC 354
Case: [2009] VSC 354
Decision Date: 28 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Sadri and Samian, engaged in a dispute concerning the administration and probate of an estate. The central issue revolved around the uncertainty regarding the value of the estate, particularly in relation to two properties that were potentially part of the estate. The matter was brought before the court following a previous order, which required the executor to present additional evidence on the valuation of these two properties. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence provided was sufficient or if further evidence was necessary to ascertain the true value of the estate.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the executor concerning the two properties. The court needed to assess whether the evidence provided was adequate to establish the value of these properties for the purposes of the estate's administration and probate. This involved examining the nature and quality of the evidence, as well as considering whether any additional information was required to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the properties' value.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the evidence provided by the executor was insufficient to accurately determine the value of the two properties in question. The court held that the evidence did not adequately address the valuation of these assets, leaving significant uncertainty that needed to be resolved. Consequently, the court determined that further evidence was necessary to ascertain the true value of the estate, directing the executor to adduce additional information as required by the previous order. The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing comprehensive and accurate evidence to facilitate the proper administration and probate of an estate.

Orders