Hildebrandt v Papakonstantinou [2024] NSWSC 1237

Hildebrandt v Papakonstantinou [2024] NSWSC 1237

Costs should follow the event of dismissal in this case, including for the family provision component, as the undertakings did not represent a substantial gain for the plaintiffs, and the rejection of a genuine Calderbank offer was unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs from the day after the offer.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Georgina Hildebrandt; Second Plaintiff: Kit Hildebrandt; First Defendant: The Estate of Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou, formerly Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou (between 3 April and 14 June 2023); Second Defendant: Markela Papakonstantinou; Third Defendant: Arthur Papakonstantinou
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Equity / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs; indemnity basis after 24 May 2024
Legal Topics
Costs, Proprietary Estoppel, Family Provision, Deed of Family Arrangement, Constructive Trust
Equity Real Property Succession Costs Proprietary Estoppel Family Provision Deed of Family Arrangement Constructive Trust

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Georgina Hildebrandt

First Plaintiff

Kit Hildebrandt

Second Plaintiff

The Estate of Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou, formerly Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou (between 3 April and 14 June 2023)

First Defendant

Markela Papakonstantinou

Second Defendant

Arthur Papakonstantinou

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Equity / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs or defendants should pay the costs of proceedings dismissed after undertakings were made
  2. 2 Whether costs after 24 May 2024 should be on an indemnity basis after rejection of Calderbank offer

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should follow the event of dismissal in this case, including for the family provision component, as the undertakings did not represent a substantial gain for the plaintiffs, and the rejection of a genuine Calderbank offer was unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs from the day after the offer.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs; indemnity basis after 24 May 2024

Orders

  • Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings: (a) on the ordinary basis up to and including 24 May 2024; and (b) on an indemnity basis from 25 May 2024, as agreed or assessed.