Malouf v Davoren-Whereat [2025] NSWSC 133

Malouf v Davoren-Whereat [2025] NSWSC 133

The defendant acted reasonably and promptly in filing the interpleader motion after efforts to reach agreement failed, and is entitled to an indemnity of costs. The gross sum costs order is appropriate given the circumstances, supported by expert evidence, and responsibility for costs is jointly and equally shared between the plaintiff and second respondent due to their respective positions escalating the dispute.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Respondent: Connor Malouf by his tutor Sam Malouf; Defendant/applicant: Kurt Davoren-Whereat; Second Respondent: George Mavrakis trading as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers; Third Respondent: Veritas Law Firm Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Motion / Costs Determination After Interpleader Motion
Outcome
The interpleader applicant (defendant) is awarded a gross sum costs order. The plaintiff and second respondent are equally and severally liable for those costs. Payment is to be made from funds in court, with partial liability between respondents noted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Gross Sum Costs Order, Interpleader, Solicitor's Lien
Civil Procedure Costs Gross Sum Costs Order Interpleader Solicitor's Lien

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connor Malouf by his tutor Sam Malouf

Plaintiff/first Respondent

Kurt Davoren-Whereat

Defendant/applicant

George Mavrakis trading as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers

Second Respondent

Veritas Law Firm Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Motion / Costs Determination After Interpleader Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the defendant entitled to indemnity costs in an interpleader motion?
  2. 2 Should a gross sum costs order be made under s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)?
  3. 3 Who is responsible for the defendant's costs following the interpleader motion?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant acted reasonably and promptly in filing the interpleader motion after efforts to reach agreement failed, and is entitled to an indemnity of costs. The gross sum costs order is appropriate given the circumstances, supported by expert evidence, and responsibility for costs is jointly and equally shared between the plaintiff and second respondent due to their respective positions escalating the dispute.

Court Disposition

The interpleader applicant (defendant) is awarded a gross sum costs order. The plaintiff and second respondent are equally and severally liable for those costs. Payment is to be made from funds in court, with partial liability between respondents noted.

Orders

  • Order, pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), that the plaintiff and second respondent pay, and are equally and severally liable for, the defendant's costs of and incidental to the interpleader notice of motion in the gross sum of $31,150.
  • Order that the costs payable to the defendant be paid from the sum paid into Court pursuant to order 2 made on 28 November 2024.