Tarbes v Taleb (No 2) - [2023] NSWSC 809

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tarbes v Taleb (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 809
Hearing dates: 10 July 2023
Decision date: 10 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Meek J
Decision:
Orders made to give effect to order for provision

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Orders made giving effect to reasons for judgment and addressing disputed issues regarding various matters including mechanics of timing of payment and amounts of payment of orders for provision from the sale of the deceased’s real property, terms of liberty to apply and timing for running of interest

Legislation Cited:
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Tarbes v Taleb [2023] NSWSC 565

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Juan Segundo Tarbes (Plaintiff)
Tarek Taleb (First Defendant)
Laila Merza (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Price (Plaintiff)
P Wallis (Defendants)
Solicitors:
McPhee Kelshaw Solicitors and Conveyancers (Plaintiff)
Heckenberg Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/224473

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

HIS HONOUR: On 5 June 2023, I delivered reasons for judgment in relation to this matter (Tarbes v Taleb [2023] NSWSC 565), which is a family provision claim, and I will describe those reasons as the “principal judgment”. These reasons assume a familiarity with the principal judgment and will adopt its abbreviations.
I found that an amount of $2.5 million was an appropriate legacy for the plaintiff in lieu of the provision for him under the Will of the deceased. However, in part because Mr Price intimated that there would or may be some practical issues in the plaintiff needing some money to obtain or to acquire some form of accommodation, I gave the parties an opportunity to confer and prepare short minutes of order to give effect to my reasons for judgment.
I directed the parties to bring in short minutes of order and stood the matter over to 19 June 2023 to enable the parties to do that and, if need be, to address on the question of costs. There was some delay in the parties being able to do that, and, following a number of extensions permitting the parties time to consider appropriate orders, the matter has been listed this morning to address orders to give effect to the reasons for judgment.
The parties have been able to agree on various orders dealing with the formalisation of the provision amount and the listing of three of the deceased’s properties for sale within specified times from the date of making of the orders. They have also agreed on costs orders, per se, and a direction that the exhibits be returned.
I will make orders in accordance with the agreed matters.
Nonetheless, the parties have not agreed on a number of matters and have provided submissions in relation to them. I have had regard to their competing short minutes of order and to the submissions and in addition have had the benefit of oral submissions from each of Mr Price and Mr Wallis.
The matters in dispute between the…

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 Tarbes v Taleb (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Tarbes v Taleb (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 809
Case: [2023] NSWSC 809
Decision Date: 10 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tarbes v Taleb, the dispute before the court revolved around the distribution of the estate of a deceased person. The primary concern was the family provision claims made by the respondents against the estate, with a focus on the mechanics of timing and amounts for payments from the sale of the deceased's real property. The court was required to address the issues concerning the orders for provision, the terms of liberty to apply, and the timing for the running of interest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the family provision legislation and the equitable principles that should guide the court in making orders for provision. The court had to determine whether the respondents were entitled to any provision from the estate and, if so, the appropriate quantum and terms of any such provision. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the mechanics of timing for the payment of these orders and the appropriate terms for the running of interest on any delayed payments.

The court found that the respondents were entitled to provision from the estate, albeit less than they sought. The court took into account the statutory criteria and the evidence presented. Regarding the timing of payments, the court determined that the orders should be paid within a specified period from the date of the judgment, with interest accruing from that date. The court also clarified the terms under which further applications could be made regarding the provision, ensuring that the estate could be finally closed. The orders reflected these findings, providing clear directives for the execution of the judgment and the payment of provision to the respondents.

The court's final orders mandated the payment of specific amounts to the respondents within a set timeframe, with interest to accrue from the date of the judgment. The orders also included provisions for any further applications by the parties regarding the execution of the judgment. The court's decision aimed to balance the needs of the respondents under the family provision legislation with the rights of the estate and its beneficiaries.

Orders