Weinstock v Sarnat

The case of Weinstock v Sarnat involved a dispute between the executor of an estate, Weinstock, and Sarnat, the latter seeking entitlement to a bank account held in the name of the deceased. The dispute came before the court for a decision on whether an anti-suit injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing with foreign proceedings, could be set aside due to a lack of jurisdiction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was seeking relief that might be granted in proceedings for the administration of an estate of a person domiciled in New South Wales. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the bank account in question was an asset of the estate. The plaintiff argued that the bank account was beneficially owned by a third party, and the injunction was necessary to protect the administration of the estate. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the application to set aside service for lack of jurisdiction should be upheld.

The court found that it had jurisdiction at the time service was ordered, as the asset in issue was indeed a bank account in the name of the deceased. The court also determined that the injunction was necessary to protect the administration of the estate. The plaintiff's contention that the bank account was beneficially owned by a third party was considered relevant to the proceedings for the administration of the estate. Consequently, the application to set aside service for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed, and the injunction was continued.

The court's final order was to continue the injunction restraining the defendant from continuing with foreign proceedings seeking entitlement to the bank account. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the matter and that the injunction was necessary to protect the administration of the estate.