Jordan v Goldspring (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 11

Jordan v Goldspring (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 11

The findings of civil contempt and limited breaches by the executors did not demonstrate such a complete failure of duty or defiance as to jeopardise the proper administration of the estate; accordingly, the discretion to revoke probate was not exercised. Instead, targeted orders to remedy specific defaults and for indemnity costs (subject to a 50% reduction for mixed success) were appropriate, with expenses to be met personally by the executors without recourse to the estate.

Parties
First Applicant/plaintiff: Katherine Mary Jordan; Second Applicant/plaintiff: Rhonda Fay Thomas; Third Applicant/plaintiff: Lynette June Goldspring; First Respondent/defendant: Peter Michael Goldspring; Second Respondent/defendant: Mark Andrew Goldspring; Third Respondent/defendant: Marianne Evelyn Goodchild; Fourth Respondent/defendant: Barry Frederick Goldspring
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity/consequential Orders/application for Contempt and Revocation of Probate / Orders Following Findings of Civil Contempt
Outcome
Applicants' motion for revocation of probate dismissed; findings of civil contempt made in limited respects; specific remedial orders and indemnity costs (at 50%) awarded against executors without indemnity from estate.
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Probate Proceedings, Revocation of Probate, Costs of Proceedings, Trustee/executor Duties
Equity Succession Law Civil Contempt Probate Proceedings Revocation of Probate Costs of Proceedings Trustee/executor Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katherine Mary Jordan

First Applicant/plaintiff

Rhonda Fay Thomas

Second Applicant/plaintiff

Lynette June Goldspring

Third Applicant/plaintiff

Peter Michael Goldspring

First Respondent/defendant

Mark Andrew Goldspring

Second Respondent/defendant

Marianne Evelyn Goodchild

Third Respondent/defendant

Barry Frederick Goldspring

Fourth Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity/consequential Orders/application for Contempt and Revocation of Probate / Orders Following Findings of Civil Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grant of probate to executors should be revoked on basis of civil contempt findings
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to indemnity costs and whether indemnity from estate should be allowed for executors' costs
  3. 3 What consequential orders should be made after findings of limited breach and civil contempt regarding estate accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of civil contempt and limited breaches by the executors did not demonstrate such a complete failure of duty or defiance as to jeopardise the proper administration of the estate; accordingly, the discretion to revoke probate was not exercised. Instead, targeted orders to remedy specific defaults and for indemnity costs (subject to a 50% reduction for mixed success) were appropriate, with expenses to be met personally by the executors without recourse to the estate.

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion for revocation of probate dismissed; findings of civil contempt made in limited respects; specific remedial orders and indemnity costs (at 50%) awarded against executors without indemnity from estate.

Orders

  • First, Second, and Third Respondents found in contempt regarding breaches of Hallen J's Orders as to Macquarie Share Account and Manual Journal Entries; remaining contempt charges dismissed; Respondents ordered to produce outstanding documents related to those accounts and supply affidavit explaining absence of any...