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) 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. I will make orders in accordance with the agreed matters. 6. 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. 7. The matters in dispute between the parties may be summarised as follows: 1. Whether a notation should be made regarding the anticipated sale price of two of the properties? 2. How much money is to be paid to the plaintiff from the proceeds of sale of the Run-O-Waters property and the Sanctuary Point property? 3. Whether there should be a period of notice for the defendants to access the Bringelly property? 4. When should the plaintiff give vacant possession of the Bringelly property? 5. What should happen if completion of the sale of the Bringelly property is delayed for more than 24 months after the date of the sale of the Sanctuary Point property? 6. What should be the extent of the terms of any liberty to apply? 7. When the timing of interest on the lump sum should run from? 8. Whether an order should be made for the payment of the plaintiff's costs within a particular time? 1. These reasons address those issues.