Antoun v Antoun [2020] NSWSC 860

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Antoun v Antoun [2020] NSWSC 860 Hearing dates: 6 March 2020; 3 April 2020; 8 April 2020; 11 May 2020; 22 May 2020 Date of orders: 6 July 2020 Decision date: 06 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Hallen J Decision: The Court: (1) Orders that access be granted to the third Defendant to inspect only the documents that are identified in the subpoenaed documents as being available for inspection. (2) Orders that access be granted to the Plaintiffs, to inspect only the documents that are identified in the subpoenaed documents as being available for inspection, but only after the evidence in chief of each Plaintiff is complete. (3) Makes no order as to the applicant's costs, to the intent that she is to pay her own costs of the application. (4) Orders that the Plaintiffs' costs of the applicant's notice of motion be the Plaintiffs' costs in the cause. (5) Orders that the third Defendant's costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, of the notice of motion, should initially, be paid out of the estate of the deceased, with liberty to the third Defendant to seek any other order that he is advised. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Documents produced by Federal Circuit Court – Notice of motion by one of the parties in the Federal Circuit Court proceedings that Plaintiffs in these proceedings not be permitted to inspect the documents produced in Federal Circuit Court proceedings – Claim that documents contain financial and other information of a private and confidential nature – Plaintiffs make claim for family provision order in respect of the estate of their father, who was the other party in the Federal Circuit Court proceedings – Due to dispute, necessary for Court to inspect the documents to determine which documents may be inspected – Documents relating to the deceased, and not containing information of a private or confidential nature relating to the applicant permitted to be inspected but only after the evidence of each of the Plaintiffs is completed – Applicant satisfied that the limited documents did not disclose information of a private or confidential nature Legislation Cited: Practice Note SC Eq 11 Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.8, 7.10, 33.4, 33.13 Cases Cited: Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1983] HCA 45 Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey (2008) 182 A Crim R 536; [2008] NSWCCA 65 Boase v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [No 3] [2012] WASC 498 Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 2140 Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2002] NSWSC 973 R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50 Xinfeng Australia International Investment Pty Ltd v GR Capital Group Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 620 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Tarnya Sara Alexis Antoun (First Plaintiff) Tamara Antoun (Second Plaintiff)