Szental v Szental - [2001] VSC 42

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

Not Restricted

No. 6303 of 2000

MARY JULIA SZENTAL	Plaintiff
v
PETER DAVID SZENTAL (who is sued as executor of the will of HELENA FINKEL, deceased)	Defendant

No. 6608 of 2000

MARY JULIA SZENTAL	Plaintiff
v
TZEDEK NOMINEES PTY LTD	First Defendant
TEDMAL ADMINISTRATORS PTY LTD	Second Defendant
MATIDA NOMINEES PTY LTD	Third Defendant
PETER DAVID SZENTAL	Fourth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Balmford, J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 February 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Szental v Szental
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 42

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal against an order for discovery – Plaintiff and Defendant are beneficiaries under the will of the deceased, probate of which was granted to the Defendant – Whether the categories of documents listed in the schedule to the order for discovery are unduly narrow – Whether the order should be limited to discovery of documents in the possession, power or control of the Defendant in his capacity as the executor of the estate – Whether the Plaintiff should be required to give an undertaking as to confidentiality in relation to any discovered documents.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal against an order for discovery – Pre-trial discovery sought from Fourthnamed Defendant to identify trusts in which the Plaintiff may have an interest of some kind as a beneficiary, with a view to joining those trusts in the substantive proceeding – Whether the potential beneficiary of a discretionary trust has a prima facie right to inspect trust documents.

Administration and Probate Act 1958; s.91(4).

Buchanan-Michaelson v Rubenstein [1965] 1 Ch 258.

Jacobson v Dafna Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] VSC 529.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr JL Sher QC with Ms RA Lewitan QC and Mr DJ Batt	Keith R Cameron
For the Defendants Peter David Szental and Matida Nominees Pty Ltd	Mr CM Scerri QC and Dr KL Emerton	Arnold Bloch Leibler

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

These two appeals arise out of the same circumstances. They were by agreement heard together and an order was made that documents filed in either appeal be admissible in the other. Each is an appeal against an order for discovery made by Master Wheeler, both orders apparently made on 13 September 2000 and corrected on 19 September 2000. By virtue of Rule 77.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 (“the Rules”) an appeal from an order made by a Master is to be by re-hearing de novo of the application to the Master. Proceeding number 6303 (“the Part 4 proceeding”), is a claim under Part 4 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (“the Act”). In proceeding number 6608 (“the trusts proceeding”) the plaintiff seeks documents and an accounting from the defendants pursuant to Order 54 of the Rules.

The defendant in the Part 4 proceeding, who is the fourth defendant in the trusts proceeding (“the defendant”) is the brother of the plaintiff, and they…

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 Szental v Szental 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: [2001] VSC 42
Decision Date: 27 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Szental v Szental involves an appeal against an order for discovery in a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, who are beneficiaries under the will of a deceased person. The probate of the will was granted to the defendant. The central issue before the court was whether the categories of documents listed in the schedule to the order for discovery were unduly narrow, and whether the order should be limited to documents in the defendant's possession, power, or control in his capacity as the executor of the estate. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff should be required to give an undertaking as to confidentiality in relation to any discovered documents.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, as a potential beneficiary of a discretionary trust, had a prima facie right to inspect trust documents. The court examined relevant case law, including Buchanan-Michaelson v Rubenstein and Jacobson v Dafna Nominees Pty Ltd, and provisions of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, particularly section 91(4). The court found that the order for discovery was unduly narrow and should be limited to documents in the defendant's possession, power, or control as the executor of the estate. The court also ruled that the plaintiff should be required to give an undertaking as to confidentiality in relation to any discovered documents.

The appeal was allowed, and the order for discovery was set aside to the extent that it required the defendant to produce documents that were not in his possession, power, or control as the executor of the estate. The plaintiff was ordered to provide an undertaking as to confidentiality in relation to any discovered documents. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that discovery orders are appropriately tailored to the specific circumstances of the case and the rights of the parties involved.

Orders