//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 793
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-07-10
Williams J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Artin v No Defendant [2026] NSWSC 793
Hearing dates: 6 July 2026
Date of orders: 10 July 2026
Decision date: 10 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Probate
Before: Williams J
Decision: See orders at [30].
Catchwords: WILLS PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – disclaimer of testamentary gift and any interest on intestacy of the deceased – where disclaimer made under misapprehension about its consequences – whether permissible for the disclaiming party to revoke the disclaimer
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.7
Cases Cited: Guo v Gao [2021] NSWSC 1059
Re the Estate of Alan Bruce Beeby [2020] NSWSC 1512
Tantau v MacFarlane [2010] NSWSC 224
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Sarkis Charles Artin (Plaintiff)
No Defendant (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr L McIntyre (Plaintiff)
N/A (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Shad Partners (Plaintiff)
N/A (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2026/00044719
Publication restriction: N/A
These proceedings concern the estates of the late Azadouhi Artin who died on 1 July 2017 and the late Anahid Artin Marie-Jeanne who died on 28 December 2022. Azadouhi and Anahid were sisters. The plaintiff, Sarkis Charles Artin, is their nephew. Many members of the Artin family are referred to in the evidence summarised below. In order to avoid confusion that would otherwise arise from their shared surname, I will refer to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended. For consistency, I will adopt the same convention in relation to members of the family who have a different surname.
Sarkis is the son of Zaven Artin and Leila Artin.
Zaven was born in Aleppo, Syria. Leila was born in Beirut, Lebanon. They were married in Sydney, New South Wales, on 22 February 1981. Sarkis was born in Auburn, on 16 September 1983.
Zaven died on 2 June 2012 at Liverpool, New South Wales.
Zaven had four siblings: his sister Adehline Demirjian (nee Artin) who died in Lebanon in or about 2004; his brother Artin Artin with whom Zaven and other family members lost contact in about 2010 and who is believed to have died in Syria at some time before 2017; his sister Azadouhi Artin who died at Kogarah, New South Wales on 1 July 2017; and his sister Anahid Artin Marie-Jeanne who died at Concord, New South Wales on 28 December 2022.
Zaven’s siblings had no children. Sarkis is the only child of Zaven.
In about 1980, Zaven purchased a unit at 4/23 Wonga Street, Canterbury, New South Wales, being the land in folio identifier X/XXXXXXX. Zaven and Leila lived there together after they were married, and they were joined by Zaven’s mother Rosa and his sisters Azadouhi and Anahid when they migrated from Lebanon to Australia. In about 1984, Zaven and Leila moved to a house they had purchased in Greenacre and allowed Rosa, Azadouhi and Anahid to continue living in the Canterbury property. Zaven agreed to transfer the Canterbury property to Azadouhi’s name to give her a sense of security and alleviate her concerns that she might otherwise be required to leave the property. Azadouhi did not make any payment for the transfer of the Canterbury property. According to Leila’s evidence, it was “always understood and agreed between Zaven and Azadouhi that the Canterbury Unit would ultimately go back to Zaven, or if he had passed away, to Sarkis.”
Anahid moved out of the Canterbury property at some time prior to 1995. Rosa and Azadouhi continued living there together until Rosa died on 6 March 2000. Azadouhi lived at the Canterbury property alone after Rosa’s death.
As I have mentioned, Azadouhi died on 1 July 2017. By her last will and testament dated 27 February 2014, she appointed Anahid’s husband Lindsay Marie-Jeanne as her executor and directed her executor to pay all her debts and give the residue of her estate to Anahid. The Canterbury property was the principal asset of Azadouhi’s estate.
On or about 1 September 2017, Sarkis contacted Mr Nader Badra, solicitor, and informed him that Anahid wished to leave to Sarkis her inheritance under Adazhoui’s will. Sarkis instructed Mr Badra that the main asset of Azadouhi’s estate was a unit in Canterbury, and asked Mr Badra to look after the matter. Mr Badra accepted the instruction.
Mr Badra met with Anahid on or about 15 September 2017. During that meeting, they discussed Azadouhi’s will. Anahid said to Mr Badra words to the effect of: “I do not want to take my inheritance. Sarkis is the only child in the Artin family tree and I want him to inherit the unit of my late sister Azadouhi in Canterbury.”
Sarkis and Anahid met with Mr Badra at Anahid’s home on or about 30 September 2017. During that meeting, Mr Badra explained to Anahid that she could disclaim her interest under Azadouhi’s will, in which case the estate would then be distributed according to the rules of intestacy under which Sarkis would be entitled to the whole of Azadouhi’s estate as Azadouhi’s parents and each of her siblings other than Anahid had predeceased her, and none of those siblings had children, with the exception of Zaven who had Sarkis. Mr Badra advised that they would need to obtain documentation from Lebanon and Syria to establish that Adehline and Artin had predeceased Azadouhi and had left no children.
On 4 May 2018, Anahid affirmed an affidavit in which she deposed: “I disclaim my interest in the estate of the deceased under the will dated 27 February 2014 and on intestacy”. The affidavit was witnessed by a solicitor who was retained to provide independent advice to Anahid.
According to Sarkis’ evidence, he had several conversations with Anahid at about the time she affirmed the affidavit in which she told Sarkis that she was making the disclaimer because she believed that this would be the simplest way to ensure that Azadouhi’s estate passed to Sarkis without complicated legal proceedings, and that she had always intended that Sarkis should receive Azadouhi’s estate as he was Azadouhi’s and Anahid’s only nephew and the only child of any of their siblings.
According to Leila’s evidence, Anahid told her in about 2019 words to the effect of: “Trust me, the unit is for Sarkis, because we don’t have kids, only Sarkis.”
Anahid’s disclaimer affidavit was filed in proceedings commenced in 2019 as an application for letters of administration of Azadouhi’s estate (proceeding 2019/64625). As Lindsay was alive and had capacity, the application was re-drawn as an application for probate in response to a requisition issued by the Registrar in Probate in May 2019. The Registrar issued further requisitions in February 2020 requiring evidence establishing all of Azadouhi’s siblings, including certified copies of birth and death certificates. Mr Badra’s efforts to obtain the documents required to answer the requisition ultimately failed due to the civil war in Syria, administrative difficulties in Lebanon, and the fact that the family did not have a copy of Adehline’s Lebanese identification documents and had lost contact with her husband who they believed had also passed away. The proceedings were dismissed on 23 February 2021 for want of due despatch pursuant to r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
According to Sarkis’ evidence, Anahid asked Mr Badra on many occasions in about 2020 whether the Canterbury property had been transferred to Sarkis.
According to Mr Badra’s evidence, he had a conversation with Anahid and Lindsay in about 2020 in the course of acting for them in another matter, during which Anahid asked him whether the Canterbury property had been transferred to Sarkis. Mr Badra informed her that they needed to show the Court that Sarkis was entitled to the property, and that he needed to get documents from Syria to establish that Sarkis was the only person entitled. Anahid replied: “I gave Sarkis the unit already, I said I don’t want it and that it should go to Sarkis.”
In December 2020, Mr Badra prepared a new will for Anahid in accordance with her instructions to leave the Canterbury property to Sarkis and the rest of her estate to Lindsay. Anahid executed the will on 30 December 2020 and Mr Badra witnessed her signature. The will is not valid due to the lack of a second witness, and it is superseded by Anahid’s will made on 17 December 2022 to which I refer below. The 30 December 2020 will nevertheless provides evidence of Anahid’s intention at that time that the Canterbury property should pass to Sarkis, although nobody appears to have considered the basis on which Anahid could make a testamentary gift of the property after disclaiming Azadouhi’s gift to her.
In October 2022, Lindsay informed Mr Badra that Anahid was receiving treatment for cancer. Mr Badra met with Anahid and Lindsay on 24 October 2022 and recommended to Anahid that she revoke the disclaimer she had made in respect of the gift to her under Azadouhi’s will and leave the Canterbury property to Sarkis under her own will so as to facilitate the property passing to Sarkis. Anahid replied: “I have always wanted Sarkis to have that unit”.
On Anahid’s instructions, Mr Badra prepared an affidavit for her to affirm revoking her disclaimer. Mr Badra met with Anahid together with Lindsay on 16 December 2022 and took her through the contents of the affidavit before she signed it in his presence. Mr Badra omitted to attest to her signature, but has given evidence in these proceedings that he was present when Anahid signed the affidavit and that he saw her doing so. The affidavit reads:
“1. I am the sole beneficiary under the Will of the Late Azadouhi Artin dated 27 February 2014.
2. I wish to withdraw my disclaimer made on 4 May 2018 which was filed in the Court in Case Number 2019/00064625.
3. I did not receive any consideration for the disclaimer.
4. I am not aware of any prejudice to any person as a result of my earlier disclaimer.
5. It was always my intention to gift the property at 4/23 Wonga Street, Canterbury NSW 2193 to my nephew, Sarkis Charles Artin.
6. It has not been easy to obtain documents from Syria and Lebanon required for an Application for Letters of Administration of the Will of the Late Azadouhi Artin dated 27 February 2014 to evidence that my nephew, Sarkis Charles Artin is the only beneficiary under intestacy.
7. My parents, Sarkis Artin and Rouza Bouladjian passed away before the Late Azadouhi Artin.
8. The only children my parents had were:
a. Azadiouhi Artin (the deceased).
b. Adeline Demirjian (Nee Artin) (died in Lebanon in 2004 without ever having any children).
c. Artin Artin (presumed to have died in Syria before the Late Azadouhi Artin). He never married and never had any children.
d. Myself, Anahid Artin Marie-Jeanne. I never had any children and my nephew Sarkis Charles Artin is like my son.
e. Zaven Artin (died on 22 June 2012 in Liverpool, Sydney Australia). He only had one son, Sarkis Charles Artin.
- When I made the disclaimer of my interest in the Will of the Late Azadouhi Artin dated 27 February 2014 and on intestacy it was on the basis that my nephew, Sarkis Charles Artin would inherit the estate of the Late Azadouhi Artin as the sole beneficiary under intestacy.
- I would never have disclaimed my interest under the Will of the Late Azadouhi Artin dated 27 February 2014 and on intestacy if I had known how difficult it would be to obtain evidence from Syria and Lebanon to prove that my nephew Sarkis Charles Artin is the only beneficiary entitled to the estate of the Late Azadouhi Artin on intestacy.
11. I am now leaving Unit at 4/23 Wonga Street, Canterbury NSW 2193 (which forms part of the estate of the Late Azadouhi Artin) in my Will to my nephew, Sarkis Charles Artin for his sole use and benefit absolutely.”
Immediately after Anahid signed the affidavit, she gave instructions to Mr Badra for the preparation of her last will which she executed the following day on 17 December 2022. Anahid appointed Lindsay as her executor (and Sarkis as an alternate executor if the appointment of Lindsay failed), gave the Canterbury property to Sarkis, and gave the rest and residue of her estate to Lindsay.
Anahid passed away on 28 December 2022.
No application for probate or administration has been made in respect of Anahid’s estate. As I have already mentioned, the application for probate in respect of Azadouhi’s estate was dismissed for want of due despatch. Linsday has now renounced his right to apply for a grant of probate in respect of either estate.
The Canterbury property remains registered in the name of Azadouhi. Sarkis has possession of the property, and has been maintaining it since Anahid’s death.
Sarkis’ claims for relief, as set out in his Amended Summons filed on 23 April 2026 and as refined somewhat immediately prior to the hearing on 7 July 2026, include a claim for a declaration that Anahid’s revocation of her disclaimer of her interest in the estate of Azadouhi (both under Azadouhi’s will and on intestacy) on 4 May 2018 was effective at law.
At the hearing on 7 July 2026, Sarkis moved only on his claim for declaratory relief and sought an order listing for directions before the Registrar in Probate on a future date the balance of the Amended Summons, including his claims for letters of administration of the estate of Azadouhi and a grant of probate in respect of the estate of Anahid. The declaration, if made, will inform the course and outcome of Sarkis’ other claims.
The evidence which I have summarised above establishes a proper factual and legal basis to make the declaration that Anahid’s revocation of the disclaimer was effective at law. The evidence establishes that Anahid disclaimed Azadouhi’s testamentary gift to her and disclaimed any interest in Azadouhi’s estate on intestacy under the misapprehension that this would create the most simple legal pathway for Azadouhi’s estate, and particularly the Canterbury property, to pass to Sarkis. Anahid did not foresee that her disclaimer would result in the property remaining in Azadouhi’s unadministered estate for years due to Sarkis’ inability to obtain the documentary evidence from Lebanon and Syria that would be required to answer requisitions issued by the Registrar in Probate in order to prove his entitlement to Azadouhi’s estate on intestacy. Anahid’s misapprehension about the legal complexity of the state of affairs created by her disclaimer was operative on her decision to make the disclaimer on 4 May 2018. In those circumstances, it was permissible for Anahid to revoke the disclaimer, as she did by the document that she signed on 16 December 2022 in the presence of Mr Badra. [1] I note that Anahid did not receive any consideration for the disclaimer, and there is no evidence that any other person changed their position in reliance on the disclaimer or would be prejudiced by the revocation.
Lindsay consents to the relief sought by Sarkis, including the declaration. The absence of a contradictor is no impediment to the making of the declaration in circumstances where the evidence establishes a proper basis for it and where there is no person who has a sufficient interest to oppose the making of the declaration or who is in a position to add anything to the evidence already before the Court. [2]
For all of those reasons, the orders of the Court are as follows:
DECLARE that the revocation by Anahid Artin Marie-Jeanne on 16 December 2022 of her disclaimer of her interest in the estate of Azadouhi Artin (both under the will and on intestacy) on 4 May 2018 was effective at law.
Order that the costs of the proceedings to date be retained or paid out of the Estate of Azadouhi Artin and/or Anahid Artin Marie-Jeanne as the case may be.
List the balance of the proceedings before the Registrar in Probate on 4 August 2026 for further directions.
**********
Tantau v MacFarlane [2010] NSWSC 224 at [83]-[116] (Ward J, as her Honour then was) and the authorities there referred to.
Guo v Gao [2021] NSWSC 1059 at [16]-[17]; Re the Estate of Alan Bruce Beeby [2020] NSWSC 1512 at [60]-[63].
Artin
No Defendant